Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA, sets a price for the purchase of non-fat dry milk and the economic impact of USDA's decision is very important to California dairy farmers. On May 31, 2001, USDA made a decision to drop the price at which it will purchase non-fat dry milk as part of the dairy price support program. USDA did not provide the dairy industry with an opportunity to provide information or comment on the Department's recommended decision. There was no advance notice or public hearings. USDA conducted an economic analysis and all of the options may have been analyzed. But this information has not been released to the public, even though it was requested under the Freedom of Information Act. In the first 6 months after USDA's decision to lower the price for non-fat dry milk took effect, California's dairy farm families lost tens of millions of dollars. In meetings with USDA, California farmers learned that another drop in the price is under consideration, which would result in millions more lost to dairy farmers. California produces 40 percent of the nation's supply of non-fat dry milk and so California could be hit hard yet again. Transparency is a critical part of a fair and equitable decision- making process and it does not currently exist in the USDA process for setting the non-fat dry milk price. The Secretary is currently required to make a decision that includes factors such as cost reduction to USDA. The Secretary also must consider other factors that the Secretary considers appropriate. I believe additional steps should be taken during the conference to assure tranparency in the Secretary's decision-making process. Factors that may be important to a decision to change the prices for butter and non-fat dry milk include: whether the decision will result in an intended change in milk production, whether the change will actually reduce government purchases and related costs, whether it will change producer milk prices, and whether other market factors, such as imports, have an effect. Milk Protein Concentrate, MPC, is of particular concern. A recent GAO study documented significant increases in MPC imports that may be displacing domestic milk protein products. Since USDA is not releasing its economic analysis, we cannot know whether this important issue is being properly considered. I would like to ask the Chairman of the Agriculture Committee, Senator Harkin, if he would be willing to work with me on additional language to address this issue during the conference?

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, for decades, Californians have opposed oil and gas drilling along their coasts. Nothing sharpened this concern more than the horrific tanker spill that occurred off the coast of Santa Barbara in 1969. Californians are still living with the ecological implications of that spill and the myriad other spills and leaks associated with the rigs that are currently along our coast. Unfortunately, 36 more leases off our coast remain eligible for oil and gas development and four additional leases remain in legal limbo. That is the last thing Californians want or need. California is now in a pitched legal battle with the Department of Interior over whether the State has the ability to deny these leases. I strongly support the State in this effort and have joined Representative Capps in filing an amicus brief in the case. Every State should have the right to deny oil and gas development off their shores, as offshore activities inevitably impact the people and resources that are onshore. Last year, I reintroduced legislation, the Coastal States Protection Act, to place a moratorium on new drilling leases in Federal waters that are adjacent to State waters that have a drilling moratorium. That bill, however, addresses only the issue of future leases. With regard to the existing leases off of California's coast, I am not completely confident that the courts will solve the problem. We must therefore act now to eliminate the threat, the threat to California's natural resources and the threat to our economy through losses in the tourism and fishing industries. It is for this reason that I am proud to introduce today with my colleague Senator Landrieu, the California Coastal Protection and Louisiana Energy Enhancement Act. Our bill would end the seemingly endless battle over the California leases and would permanently protect those areas from oil, gas, and mineral development. Here's how it would work. Within 30 days of enactment, the Secretary of Interior would provide the oil companies holding the 40 California leases with a swap of equivalent value in the Gulf of Mexico. If all of the companies holding the California leases agree to this offer and agree to drop all pending litigation regarding those leases, then the California leases will be canceled, and the lessees will receive a credit equal to the amount paid for the leases plus the amount already spent to develop them. These credits could be used only in the central and western Gulf, an area already open to drilling and open to further leasing. They could be used for bidding on new leases in that area or to pay royalty payments for existing drilling activities in that area. The 40 tracts off of California's coast would then be converted to an ecological preserve, thus permanently protecting the areas from future mineral leasing and development. The tracts would be managed for the protection of traditional fishing activities as well as conservation, scientific, and recreational benefits. I am very proud of this legislation, and this very promising proposal to end the imminent threat of additional drilling off California's coast. We have been very careful to make sure that these credits are designed in a way that will not promote new drilling in environmentally sensitive areas. Instead, these credits can only be used in non- controversial areas that have already been set aside for future development. We have also been very careful to ensure that the Federal Government, and in turn, the Federal taxpayer are protected from any future claims by these companies regarding these leases. And, I am very pleased to say that we have worked to ensure that the 40 California tracts will never again be threatened by offshore development. In short, we get rid of unwanted drilling in California and permanently protect these sensitive areas. The oil companies are freed from a protracted legal battle and allowed to take their business elsewhere. And, the Federal Government is protected from expensive litigation that the companies are currently pursuing. I believe that we have hit upon the proverbial win-win situation. And I look forward to having this bill became a reality soon.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, for decades, Californians have opposed oil and gas drilling along their coasts. Nothing sharpened this concern more than the horrific tanker spill that occurred off the coast of Santa Barbara in 1969. Californians are still living with the ecological implications of that spill and the myriad other spills and leaks associated with the rigs that are currently along our coast. Unfortunately, 36 more leases off our coast remain eligible for oil and gas development and four additional leases remain in legal limbo. That is the last thing Californians want or need. California is now in a pitched legal battle with the Department of Interior over whether the State has the ability to deny these leases. I strongly support the State in this effort and have joined Representative Capps in filing an amicus brief in the case. Every State should have the right to deny oil and gas development off their shores, as offshore activities inevitably impact the people and resources that are onshore. Last year, I reintroduced legislation, the Coastal States Protection Act, to place a moratorium on new drilling leases in Federal waters that are adjacent to State waters that have a drilling moratorium. That bill, however, addresses only the issue of future leases. With regard to the existing leases off of California's coast, I am not completely confident that the courts will solve the problem. We must therefore act now to eliminate the threat, the threat to California's natural resources and the threat to our economy through losses in the tourism and fishing industries. It is for this reason that I am proud to introduce today with my colleague Senator Landrieu, the California Coastal Protection and Louisiana Energy Enhancement Act. Our bill would end the seemingly endless battle over the California leases and would permanently protect those areas from oil, gas, and mineral development. Here's how it would work. Within 30 days of enactment, the Secretary of Interior would provide the oil companies holding the 40 California leases with a swap of equivalent value in the Gulf of Mexico. If all of the companies holding the California leases agree to this offer and agree to drop all pending litigation regarding those leases, then the California leases will be canceled, and the lessees will receive a credit equal to the amount paid for the leases plus the amount already spent to develop them. These credits could be used only in the central and western Gulf, an area already open to drilling and open to further leasing. They could be used for bidding on new leases in that area or to pay royalty payments for existing drilling activities in that area. The 40 tracts off of California's coast would then be converted to an ecological preserve, thus permanently protecting the areas from future mineral leasing and development. The tracts would be managed for the protection of traditional fishing activities as well as conservation, scientific, and recreational benefits. I am very proud of this legislation, and this very promising proposal to end the imminent threat of additional drilling off California's coast. We have been very careful to make sure that these credits are designed in a way that will not promote new drilling in environmentally sensitive areas. Instead, these credits can only be used in non- controversial areas that have already been set aside for future development. We have also been very careful to ensure that the Federal Government, and in turn, the Federal taxpayer are protected from any future claims by these companies regarding these leases. And, I am very pleased to say that we have worked to ensure that the 40 California tracts will never again be threatened by offshore development. In short, we get rid of unwanted drilling in California and permanently protect these sensitive areas. The oil companies are freed from a protracted legal battle and allowed to take their business elsewhere. And, the Federal Government is protected from expensive litigation that the companies are currently pursuing. I believe that we have hit upon the proverbial win-win situation. And I look forward to having this bill became a reality soon.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, the farm bill before us recognizes the importance of environmental conservation in agriculture and provides funding for programs that support those measures. California livestock operations come in all sizes, but many of them are large operations requiring substantial environmental management activities. Access to programs that support environmental improvements is key to ensuring that the best environmental practices are undertaken on these farms. Senator Wellstone's amendment, which would limit access to conservation funding based on factors like the size of the farm, falls disproportionately hard on California farmers and would ultimately slow down environmental improvements. Limitations on these payments will not eliminate those farms, it will only limit support for conservation efforts that are so critically important in these operations. For those reasons, I must vote against the Wellstone amendment and support conservation funding for California farmers.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I would like to take a moment to reflect on the tremendous accomplishments of Elizabeth Brown Calleton during her tenure at Planned Parenthood of Pasadena. During the past 40 years, Ms. Calleton has made a major contribution to Planned Parenthood of Pasadena's 69-year history, ultimately serving as its President and CEO. A women's health care advocate, she established Planned Parenthood Community Orientation Luncheons and a community-wide research network to provide women with access to health care. Ms. Calleton served on the committee that created the North West Community Healthcare Alliance Program, a program geared to the needs of low-income, uninsured individuals. The Peer Educator Program more than doubled in size during Ms. Calleton's tenure. In addition to her extraordinary work at Planned Parenthood, Ms. Calleton has served with a variety of community organizations including the League of Women Voters, the Pasadena Commission on the Status of Women and Women at Work. Awards she has received from the Magna Carta Business and Professional Women and the Young Women's Christian Association are a testament to her great dedication. ``Celebrating the Past, Looking Towards the Future'' pays a fine tribute to Ms. Calleton's legacy. Ms. Calleton has much to celebrate and, I know, looks forward to new challenges in her future endeavors. Her work will serve the community for generations to come.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Auditor Independence Act of 2002. The Act directs the Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC, to issue regulations prohibiting accounting firms from providing management consulting services for the companies they audit and barring accounting firms from providing any other non-audit related services that could result in a potential conflict of interest. Using the rule that former SEC Chairman Arthur Levitt proposed in 2000 as a model, my legislation removes the actual conflict of interest as well as the perception of a conflict of interest that results when an auditing firm provides a client with consulting and auditing services. The scandal resulting from the relationship between Enron and Arthur Andersen is only one example of the overdue need for this reform. In November 2001, Enron disclosed that it had overstated profits by more than $580 million since 1997. That means that Enron lied to investors about its earnings and the Arthur Andersen auditors failed to expose that lie in 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000. During each of those years, Arthur Andersen worked as both auditor and consultant to Enron. In 2000 alone, Enron paid Arthur Andersen $27 million for its audit work and paid the firm $28 million in management consulting fees. In auditing Enron, Arthur Andersen clearly made a series of errors. It is reasonable to assume that Arthur Andersen's dependence on the consulting fees that it charged Enron may have affected the quality of their audit work. But the problem is not limited to Arthur Andersen. In a study analyzing the effects of accounting firms' consulting business on the independence of their auditors, Stanford professor Karen Nelson an her colleagues provide evidence showing that the provision of non-audit services impairs an auditor's independence. The study used new data that has become available just since February 2001, when the SEC began requiring corporations to disclose all audit and non-audit fees paid by a corporation to its auditor. The study looked at the ratio of non-audit versus audit revenues paid by a corporation to its auditing firm. It found that over half of the firms paid more for consulting services than audit services, and that over 95 percent of firms purchase at least some non-audit services from their auditor. The study also found that corporations with the least independent auditors, those who paid the most in consulting fees versus audit fees, are more likely to just meet or beat earnings benchmarks, such as analysts' expectations and prior year earnings expectations, and to report large discretionary earnings. This suggests more ``earnings management'', manipulation of debt and earnings data, went on among companies in the sample that paid the highest proportion of management consulting fees to their auditors. We must remove this conflict of interest from the accounting business. Public confidence in the integrity of an accounting firm's audit will depend now more than ever before on whether auditors are independent from the companies that they audit. Auditors clearly cannot be independent from the companies they audit if they rely on those companies for lucrative consulting fees. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate to pass this bill quickly as a part of our larger legislative response to the Enron scandal.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Auditor Independence Act of 2002. The Act directs the Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC, to issue regulations prohibiting accounting firms from providing management consulting services for the companies they audit and barring accounting firms from providing any other non-audit related services that could result in a potential conflict of interest. Using the rule that former SEC Chairman Arthur Levitt proposed in 2000 as a model, my legislation removes the actual conflict of interest as well as the perception of a conflict of interest that results when an auditing firm provides a client with consulting and auditing services. The scandal resulting from the relationship between Enron and Arthur Andersen is only one example of the overdue need for this reform. In November 2001, Enron disclosed that it had overstated profits by more than $580 million since 1997. That means that Enron lied to investors about its earnings and the Arthur Andersen auditors failed to expose that lie in 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000. During each of those years, Arthur Andersen worked as both auditor and consultant to Enron. In 2000 alone, Enron paid Arthur Andersen $27 million for its audit work and paid the firm $28 million in management consulting fees. In auditing Enron, Arthur Andersen clearly made a series of errors. It is reasonable to assume that Arthur Andersen's dependence on the consulting fees that it charged Enron may have affected the quality of their audit work. But the problem is not limited to Arthur Andersen. In a study analyzing the effects of accounting firms' consulting business on the independence of their auditors, Stanford professor Karen Nelson an her colleagues provide evidence showing that the provision of non-audit services impairs an auditor's independence. The study used new data that has become available just since February 2001, when the SEC began requiring corporations to disclose all audit and non-audit fees paid by a corporation to its auditor. The study looked at the ratio of non-audit versus audit revenues paid by a corporation to its auditing firm. It found that over half of the firms paid more for consulting services than audit services, and that over 95 percent of firms purchase at least some non-audit services from their auditor. The study also found that corporations with the least independent auditors, those who paid the most in consulting fees versus audit fees, are more likely to just meet or beat earnings benchmarks, such as analysts' expectations and prior year earnings expectations, and to report large discretionary earnings. This suggests more ``earnings management'', manipulation of debt and earnings data, went on among companies in the sample that paid the highest proportion of management consulting fees to their auditors. We must remove this conflict of interest from the accounting business. Public confidence in the integrity of an accounting firm's audit will depend now more than ever before on whether auditors are independent from the companies that they audit. Auditors clearly cannot be independent from the companies they audit if they rely on those companies for lucrative consulting fees. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate to pass this bill quickly as a part of our larger legislative response to the Enron scandal.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, smallpox is a deadly disease that if not treated within the few first days after initial exposure, can cause death in 1 out of 3 cases. Clearly, this is not a disease to take lightly. The problem with smallpox, unlike our recent experience with anthrax, is that it is highly contagious, and not simply infectious. Thus, one person can spread the disease to hundreds of people within a matter of days. In this new climate of threatened bioterrorist attacks, it is essential that we prepare ourselves for the worst case scenario and not simply sit back and hope for the best. This fact was highlighted in disturbing detail in the ``Dark Winter'' exercise conducted by the Center for Civilian Biodefense Studies at John Hopkins University. ``Dark Winter'' showed that an aerosol release of smallpox virus would spread easily, and that the dose needed to cause infection is very small. The exercise showed that 20 confirmed cases could result in as many as 300,000 additional infections and 100,000 deaths in just 3 short weeks. In light of this, the Federal Government is working quickly to ensure that public health officials at all levels of government are able to work together should an outbreak occur. I applaud the steps already taken by the Centers for Disease Control to vaccinate some of its first response personnel and to ensure the safety of those vaccinations. But I believe it is not only essential to have a trained and ready team in place at the federal level to respond immediately to a possible outbreak, I believe that such a vaccination program should be expanded. That is why I sent a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Thompson urging him to work with Governors to identify and vaccinate key first responders in all 50 States. I specifically asked Secretary Thompson to instruct CDC officials to reach out to Governors and work with them to create lists of critical first responders in their States, and to authorize those vaccinations within the next 60 days. We must also work quickly to make sure we have at least 290 million doses of smallpox vaccine available to treat the entire population as well as support additional research on antiviral therapies and other vaccines to help control and contain any bioterrorist attack. In California, many companies are already making progress toward such antiviral therapies for smallpox, and I hope that we will not delay in providing funding for this type of research.

Mrs. BOXER. I thank my distinguished colleague from Iowa for his supportive remarks, and hope that Secretary Thompson will seriously consider his suggestion. I truly believe that a small cadre of vaccinated first responders from each of the 50 states would provide an indispensable complement to the CDC staff already inoculated.

Mrs. BOXER. As we continue to discuss funding to prepare for potential bioterrorist attacks, we should also have confidence in this country's ability to react to a smallpox outbreak promptly. Ensuring that first responders are ``armed'' with a vaccination and in a position to respond is a responsible way to achieve this goal.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am pleased to be introducing today a bill that will take an important first step in restoring the San Gabriel River and Lower LA River, which run through Los Angeles, CA. These two rivers have suffered from years of abuse and neglect. For far too long, we have channeled, redirected, constricted, polluted, and simply ignored these two rivers. The result is that substantial portions of these rivers look nothing like their natural form. Instead of soft bottoms covered with aquatic grasses, stream banks lined with trees and bushes, and waters teaming with fish, these rivers have cement bottoms, cement banks, and little remaining wildlife. Today, we begin what will be a long, slow process in turning the tide for these two urban waterways. This bill directs the Secretary of Interior to conduct a study of the suitability and feasibility of protecting and restoring these two rivers by making them a part of our national park system. The long term vision I have is to see these rivers restored to a more natural state so that they can be a home to southern California's unique fish and wildlife. Just as important to me is that these rivers be restored so they can serve as a source of outdoor recreation for one of our Nation's most congested urban areas. Most communities in Los Angeles are desperate for open space. They seek outdoor areas where children can play, adults can meet, and people of all ages can find respite from the daily hustle and bustle of some of our most economically and socially stressed neighborhoods. What I am proposing would be an unprecedented urban restoration effort. But that does not mean it is impossible. Far from it. This vision is shared by Congresswoman Hilda Solis, who first introduced this bill in the House of Representatives. I look forward to working hand in hand with her to ensure that this dream becomes a reality. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am pleased to be introducing today a bill that will take an important first step in restoring the San Gabriel River and Lower LA River, which run through Los Angeles, CA. These two rivers have suffered from years of abuse and neglect. For far too long, we have channeled, redirected, constricted, polluted, and simply ignored these two rivers. The result is that substantial portions of these rivers look nothing like their natural form. Instead of soft bottoms covered with aquatic grasses, stream banks lined with trees and bushes, and waters teaming with fish, these rivers have cement bottoms, cement banks, and little remaining wildlife. Today, we begin what will be a long, slow process in turning the tide for these two urban waterways. This bill directs the Secretary of Interior to conduct a study of the suitability and feasibility of protecting and restoring these two rivers by making them a part of our national park system. The long term vision I have is to see these rivers restored to a more natural state so that they can be a home to southern California's unique fish and wildlife. Just as important to me is that these rivers be restored so they can serve as a source of outdoor recreation for one of our Nation's most congested urban areas. Most communities in Los Angeles are desperate for open space. They seek outdoor areas where children can play, adults can meet, and people of all ages can find respite from the daily hustle and bustle of some of our most economically and socially stressed neighborhoods. What I am proposing would be an unprecedented urban restoration effort. But that does not mean it is impossible. Far from it. This vision is shared by Congresswoman Hilda Solis, who first introduced this bill in the House of Representatives. I look forward to working hand in hand with her to ensure that this dream becomes a reality. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the recent passing of Fresno County Supervisor Deran Koligian, an extraordinary public servant and Californian who died on December 11th at the age of 74, after a two-year battle with cancer. Deran Koligian was a Fresno County icon, having served as a Supervisor for two decades. He faithfully served his constituents up until the day of his death. Deran Koligian set a high standard of integrity and decency. He was a man of great determination and dedication who worked tirelessly for Fresno County and California and was loved and respected by so many. He was a farmer, a World War II veteran, a family man and an honorable Fresno County Supervisor. He will be greatly missed by all. I ask that the Fresno Bee editorial from December 13, 2001, be printed in the Record. And, on behalf of the Senate, I extend our thoughts and prayers to the Koligian Family on the loss of an extraordinary man.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, when we first began the debate on the education reauthorization bill, I came to the floor calling for three simple things--reform, resources, and results. Overall, I believe this education bill makes a significant step toward achieving these three goals, and I want to highlight some of the bill's important provisions. The bill includes improved targeting of federal funds to the neediest communities and increases support for Limited English Proficient and migrant students. It continues our federal commitment to improve public schools by reducing class sizes and overcrowding in order to provide safe and orderly places for learning. This will improve the performance of students and teachers in our public schools. Because I am a firm believer in school testing and accountability standards when properly structured, I am pleased that my colleagues were able to reach a compromise so that the federal government will pay its fair share in supporting the new standards in schools. This bill also maintains the emergency school repair and construction program, and ensures that every classroom will be led by a qualified teacher. But the provision of this bill of which I am most pleased is the Title V provision on afterschool programs. This Title includes the afterschool amendment that I offered with my colleague Senator Ensign. Studies have shown that services such as afterschool programs are some of the most important weapons against juvenile crime by keeping our kids out of the streets. Afterschool programs provide academically-enriched services during the hours of 2 p.m. and 8 p.m., which the FBI reports are the times when children are most likely to be involved in crimes and other delinquent behavior. This is why I strongly believe in the 21 Century Community Learning Centers program and am delighted that this authorization bill contains the first ever multi-year authorization for afterschool services. Although my amendment would have provided a total of $4.5 billion in funding for fiscal year 2008, I am extremely pleased that this bill makes a significant step forward in achieving this goal by authorizing over $300 million in additional funds for fiscal year 2002 for a total of $1.25 billion. This bill then increases funding levels by $250 million each year for the next five years. This will allow for a total of $2.5 billion in 2007 and will provide nearly four million children in need access to afterschool programs. Finally, I want to mention one thing this bill does not include that it should. The federal government needs to meet its commitment by contributing 40 percent of the average per pupil expenditure toward the funding of special education programs. Providing full funding of the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act would have helped alleviate some of the strain placed upon school districts to educate both regular and special education students. While I regret that we were not able to include mandatory full funding for special education programs, I know that my colleagues and I will not rest until this finally becomes a reality. Reform plus Resources equals Results. This is the recipe to a successful public school system. Just like any good recipe, we cannot reasonably expect to have a successful public education system if we are not willing to put forth the necessary resources. I believe that this Education Reauthorization bill symbolizes the willingness of all parties to put aside their differences and work toward the betterment of our children. Make no mistake, we still have a long way to go toward fully supporting our public education system, but I believe that this bill is a positive step forward in achieving this goal.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today Senator Corzine and I are introducing the Pension Protection and Diversification Act of 2001, (PPDA). I authored and Congress passed a bill in 1997 amending ERISA. That law bars employers from forcing employees to invest employee voluntary contributions to their 401(k) in the employer's real estate or equities with a couple of exceptions. I believe that what Enron did violated the law I authored. Enron ``locked down'' its pension fund for a period of time during which the company's stock plummeted. That lockdown effectively forced Enron employees to have their voluntary contributions and earnings on those contributions invested in Enron's plunging stock. That said, we are introducing the PPDA today in order to protect employees from losing their retirement savings in the future the way that Enron employees lost theirs. Enron employees were naturally drawn to Enron stock because of its meteoric rise. But when the stock crashed, it took many Enron employees' savings down with it. There are two lessons we should learn from this situation. First, Enron workers had far too much of their individual 401(k) account plans invested in Enron stock. And second, Enron forced its employees to hold its matching contribution in Enron stock to the employee's 401(k) account for far too long. Unfortunately, Enron employees are not alone in their 401(k) investment habits. There are far too many workers in far too many companies disproportionately investing their retirement savings in employer stock. The ``Pension Protection and Diversification Act of 2001'', PPDA, will encourage workers to diversify their retirement savings and to encourage employers to give workers the power to diversify their retirement plans. Toward that end, the bill limits to 20 percent the investment an employee can have in any one stock across their individual account plans with an employer. Studies show that employees do not diversify their investments sufficiently even when they have the power to diversify. In the Enron case, too many workers followed their employer's lead and invested too much of their own money in Enron stock. This provision, based on the opinions that financial management experts have expressed in numerous articles over the last few years, is designed to discourage that gamble. The PPDA also limits to 90 days the time that an employer can force an employee to hold a matching employer stock contribution. Too often, the current holding period on stock ownership in a retirement plan is prohibitive because it requires participants to keep their shares far longer than might suit their needs. There are typically two types of structures. Either the participant is required to hold the stock until a certain age, for example, at Enron they had to hold it until they were at least 50 years old or older, or the participant is required to hold the stock for a certain period of time, for example, for 5 years or longer. These mandatory holding periods require investors to hang on to their company stock for 5 to 25 years or more before they can properly divest themselves to a more diversified portfolio. This bill will put an end to that practice. To encourage cash matching contributions rather than matching contributions in stock, the PPDA limits to 50 percent, instead of 100 percent, the tax deduction that an employer can take on a matching contribution if that contribution is made in stock. Employees often report that the employer match in employer stock to their 401(k) plans is seen as a tacit recommendation to put their voluntary contributions in employer stock as well. By encouraging cash over stock contributions, this bill gives employees the power to determine where their funds are invested. And, last, the PPDA lowers to 35 years of age and 5 years of service the triggers that allow an employee to diversify his or her investments in an Employee Stock Ownership Plan, ESOP. The current diversification rules are too restrictive and leave employees too exposed. ESOPs currently are required to allow employees to diversify only a portion of their employer stock; they can diversify only during limited window periods; and they can diversify only after they reach age 55 with 10 years of plan participation. So, most employees most of the time don't have current diversification rights in ESOPs. By the time they are eligible to diversify, it may be too late. There is another factor to bear in mind. A 401(k) or other defined contribution plan that holds enough employer stock can readily be converted to an ESOP. New worker protections enacted to apply to 401(k) plans could be circumvented by converting the portion of the 401(k) plan that is investing in company stock to an ESOP or by setting up an ESOP from the outset. Allowing divestiture at an earlier date will help avoid the situation. We exempt ESOPs from the rest of this bill because there are other factors at play, such as the basic purpose of ESOPs. I think there is justification for having 401(k) diversification rights that are far broader then ESOP diversification rights; but I am including ESOP diversification requirements in this bill because in their current form, those requirements are too narrow. Whether or not Enron broke the law in the management of its pension plan is being determined in the courts. I believe that they did, but we must make sure all workers are protected from losing their savings before an employer's stock collapses. I encourage my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today Senator Corzine and I are introducing the Pension Protection and Diversification Act of 2001, (PPDA). I authored and Congress passed a bill in 1997 amending ERISA. That law bars employers from forcing employees to invest employee voluntary contributions to their 401(k) in the employer's real estate or equities with a couple of exceptions. I believe that what Enron did violated the law I authored. Enron ``locked down'' its pension fund for a period of time during which the company's stock plummeted. That lockdown effectively forced Enron employees to have their voluntary contributions and earnings on those contributions invested in Enron's plunging stock. That said, we are introducing the PPDA today in order to protect employees from losing their retirement savings in the future the way that Enron employees lost theirs. Enron employees were naturally drawn to Enron stock because of its meteoric rise. But when the stock crashed, it took many Enron employees' savings down with it. There are two lessons we should learn from this situation. First, Enron workers had far too much of their individual 401(k) account plans invested in Enron stock. And second, Enron forced its employees to hold its matching contribution in Enron stock to the employee's 401(k) account for far too long. Unfortunately, Enron employees are not alone in their 401(k) investment habits. There are far too many workers in far too many companies disproportionately investing their retirement savings in employer stock. The ``Pension Protection and Diversification Act of 2001'', PPDA, will encourage workers to diversify their retirement savings and to encourage employers to give workers the power to diversify their retirement plans. Toward that end, the bill limits to 20 percent the investment an employee can have in any one stock across their individual account plans with an employer. Studies show that employees do not diversify their investments sufficiently even when they have the power to diversify. In the Enron case, too many workers followed their employer's lead and invested too much of their own money in Enron stock. This provision, based on the opinions that financial management experts have expressed in numerous articles over the last few years, is designed to discourage that gamble. The PPDA also limits to 90 days the time that an employer can force an employee to hold a matching employer stock contribution. Too often, the current holding period on stock ownership in a retirement plan is prohibitive because it requires participants to keep their shares far longer than might suit their needs. There are typically two types of structures. Either the participant is required to hold the stock until a certain age, for example, at Enron they had to hold it until they were at least 50 years old or older, or the participant is required to hold the stock for a certain period of time, for example, for 5 years or longer. These mandatory holding periods require investors to hang on to their company stock for 5 to 25 years or more before they can properly divest themselves to a more diversified portfolio. This bill will put an end to that practice. To encourage cash matching contributions rather than matching contributions in stock, the PPDA limits to 50 percent, instead of 100 percent, the tax deduction that an employer can take on a matching contribution if that contribution is made in stock. Employees often report that the employer match in employer stock to their 401(k) plans is seen as a tacit recommendation to put their voluntary contributions in employer stock as well. By encouraging cash over stock contributions, this bill gives employees the power to determine where their funds are invested. And, last, the PPDA lowers to 35 years of age and 5 years of service the triggers that allow an employee to diversify his or her investments in an Employee Stock Ownership Plan, ESOP. The current diversification rules are too restrictive and leave employees too exposed. ESOPs currently are required to allow employees to diversify only a portion of their employer stock; they can diversify only during limited window periods; and they can diversify only after they reach age 55 with 10 years of plan participation. So, most employees most of the time don't have current diversification rights in ESOPs. By the time they are eligible to diversify, it may be too late. There is another factor to bear in mind. A 401(k) or other defined contribution plan that holds enough employer stock can readily be converted to an ESOP. New worker protections enacted to apply to 401(k) plans could be circumvented by converting the portion of the 401(k) plan that is investing in company stock to an ESOP or by setting up an ESOP from the outset. Allowing divestiture at an earlier date will help avoid the situation. We exempt ESOPs from the rest of this bill because there are other factors at play, such as the basic purpose of ESOPs. I think there is justification for having 401(k) diversification rights that are far broader then ESOP diversification rights; but I am including ESOP diversification requirements in this bill because in their current form, those requirements are too narrow. Whether or not Enron broke the law in the management of its pension plan is being determined in the courts. I believe that they did, but we must make sure all workers are protected from losing their savings before an employer's stock collapses. I encourage my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am very pleased to be introducing the Pacific Salmon Recovery Act to grant Federal funding for salmon recovery efforts in California, Idaho, Washington, Oregon, and Alaska. The Salmon Recovery Act authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to provide $350 million during each of the next six fiscal years to these five western States and the Tribes in that region. In California, as in much of the West, wild salmon stocks have collapsed. Their precipitous decline is the result of habitat destruction, overfishing, pollution, and dams that block the passage of fish to and from their spawning areas. The results have been tragic. Fishermen have lost their jobs. Tribes have lost species that are their religious and cultural icons. And, the environment is suffering. This bill would help to remedy these problems by investing in the restoration of these economic and culturally important fish. Specifically, it will provide funds to support projects in coastal waters and river habitats that will help restore and recover wild salmon. It directs that priority be given to the restoration of species listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. It establishes criteria to ensure that funds are not wasted on projects that will not benefit fish. It directs the Secretary of Commerce to develop a process for peer reviewing proposed projects to ensure that only scientifically sound projects receive funding. And, it requires States and Tribes to provide an annual spending plan to Congress as well as a one-time comprehensive plan for salmon restoration. It is important to note that Idaho and the Tribes will finally be eligible for Pacific Salmon Recovery Fund dollars as a result of this bill. There is no justification for them to have been excluded in the past. Additionally, this bill requires that the funds be divided equally among the 5 States. This will ensure that the funding distribution is not distorted by political pressures. I am particularly pleased that the supporters of this bill come from across the political spectrum. I am joined in the introduction of this bill by Senators Craig, R-ID, Crapo, R-ID, Wyden, D-OR, Smith, R-OR, and Feinstein, D-CA. We worked together for many months to craft this legislation. We were ultimately successful because we all share the same goal, saving wild salmon. Finally, this bill illustrates clearly that our economy and our environment are linked. I have always said we cannot have a healthy economy without a healthy environment. In restoring the salmon, we will also be restoring the economy of many communities in the West that are, or were, dependent on healthy salmon runs. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am very pleased to be introducing the Pacific Salmon Recovery Act to grant Federal funding for salmon recovery efforts in California, Idaho, Washington, Oregon, and Alaska. The Salmon Recovery Act authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to provide $350 million during each of the next six fiscal years to these five western States and the Tribes in that region. In California, as in much of the West, wild salmon stocks have collapsed. Their precipitous decline is the result of habitat destruction, overfishing, pollution, and dams that block the passage of fish to and from their spawning areas. The results have been tragic. Fishermen have lost their jobs. Tribes have lost species that are their religious and cultural icons. And, the environment is suffering. This bill would help to remedy these problems by investing in the restoration of these economic and culturally important fish. Specifically, it will provide funds to support projects in coastal waters and river habitats that will help restore and recover wild salmon. It directs that priority be given to the restoration of species listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. It establishes criteria to ensure that funds are not wasted on projects that will not benefit fish. It directs the Secretary of Commerce to develop a process for peer reviewing proposed projects to ensure that only scientifically sound projects receive funding. And, it requires States and Tribes to provide an annual spending plan to Congress as well as a one-time comprehensive plan for salmon restoration. It is important to note that Idaho and the Tribes will finally be eligible for Pacific Salmon Recovery Fund dollars as a result of this bill. There is no justification for them to have been excluded in the past. Additionally, this bill requires that the funds be divided equally among the 5 States. This will ensure that the funding distribution is not distorted by political pressures. I am particularly pleased that the supporters of this bill come from across the political spectrum. I am joined in the introduction of this bill by Senators Craig, R-ID, Crapo, R-ID, Wyden, D-OR, Smith, R-OR, and Feinstein, D-CA. We worked together for many months to craft this legislation. We were ultimately successful because we all share the same goal, saving wild salmon. Finally, this bill illustrates clearly that our economy and our environment are linked. I have always said we cannot have a healthy economy without a healthy environment. In restoring the salmon, we will also be restoring the economy of many communities in the West that are, or were, dependent on healthy salmon runs. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I say to my friends, I will be brief and to the point. I thank my friend from Vermont. This particular part of the farm bill is very important to our State that is having so many issues surrounding water, the availability of water, and the ability to have enough water for everyone--for the farmers, for the urban areas, for the suburban areas, for the environment, for fish and wildlife. I had the experience of taking a hike along a river that is pretty dry. It is in a State park. They have a wonderful series of parks along this river that is now so dry. This was the place where the salmon would come. There is nothing sadder than seeing this happen, seeing us lose our habitat. It is our responsibility to make sure we do right by the environment, right by the farmers, right by the urban users, right by the suburban users. That means we all have to live within this gift we get from God that sustains us--the water. We have to use it wisely. We have to be smart about it. We have to share it. If we do that, everyone will thrive in the end. What Senator Reid has done by his excellent work on this bill--and I so much oppose this move to remove it from the bill--is to understand this reality, that this is a precious resource, this water; that we do need it for all the stakeholders. We know when we took up the issue of the Klamath what a terrible situation we had there with the farmers literally crying because they didn't have enough water to farm. They didn't have an option to sell what water they had. What Senator Reid does, through a leasing and a purchase program, is to make sure that on a voluntary basis farmers have the option to lease or sell some of their water. For example, suppose they choose to go to another crop and they need less water. They can go to that other crop and then sell the excess water that they have and increase and enhance their incomes. This is something that is very popular. In my State, I heard from farmers who really support very strongly what Harry Reid is trying to do. They tell me this would be a welcome opportunity for them. So when people get up and say the West this and the West that, you can't speak for the whole West because there are farmers in my State, in my region, who believe this kind of a provision is going to help them survive. Let me repeat that. This kind of provision will help them survive. They have told me that. They have written this to me. Therefore, when Senator Reid was putting together this provision, I thanked him on behalf of those farmers who call the Reid provision a win-win situation. Farmers could sell water they could not otherwise use and, in exchange, get funds they need to keep on going, and fish and wildlife get the needed water. I find it interesting that in this debate some on the other side talk about the big, bad, evil Federal Government coming in and stealing water away from farmers. First of all, I know Ann Veneman, and I don't think of her in that way, and I don't think of the Federal Government as evil. I think people see the Federal Government as a necessary tool for them to do the right thing, whether it is in foreign policy, domestic policy, or protection of the environment. I don't think this administration, or any administration, would come in like Big Brother or Big Sister and disrupt a farmer's life. On the contrary, I think in fact that because this is voluntary, this is an option for farmers. In closing, I don't need to go on at great length. I wanted to support my colleague from Nevada, the assistant Democratic leader, who I think has done an incredible job of crafting a very good provision. I am disappointed that we always seem to pit farmers against the fishing people, fishing people against the urban and suburban people. In California, we have learned that we have to live together. We don't come to this floor--Senator Feinstein and I--picking a fight with any of them. We try to bring everybody together. Senator Reid has done a good job in trying to bring all the stakeholders together. In this case the farmers stand to win, the environment stands to win, the fish stand to win, as does the wildlife and everybody else. I think what I hear on the other side of the aisle is the old water wars, the old language, and it is the old threat, the old gloom and doom. I urge colleagues to work with Senator Reid, give this a chance. I think this program could work. It could be a win-win for everybody. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I would like to take this moment to reflect on the life of my friend and well-known philanthropist, Stanley Foster. Stan died of cancer on November 14, 2001 in San Diego, CA, at the age of 74. His death represents a great loss for the people of San Diego, the State of California and the Nation, who benefitted immensely from his extraordinary dedication and commitment to his community. His strong passion to make a difference, particularly reflected in his work to prevent gun violence, has made a lasting impact on all our lives. Stan Foster was the son of a scrap-dealer from Ukraine. After graduating from the University of Washington, he owned a retail furniture store in Portland before settling in San Diego in 1954. A man from humble beginnings, Stan gradually rose to become a successful businessman as the owner of the popular Hang Ten sportswear label. Throughout his career, he took great pride in reinvesting in the community. He was actively involved in organizations including the Chamber of Commerce, the United Way, the Jewish Federation and the Combined Arts Council. He also played a significant role in the political sphere, earning respect and admiration from legislators on both sides of the aisle. But he is most well known for his unwavering commitment to the fight against gun violence. In the 1980s, Stan sold the Hang Ten company and shifted his priorities towards his civic work. Affected by an incident that occurred in his teenage life, Stan dedicated much of his time to help combat gun violence. In pursuit of this mission, he founded San Diegans Against Handgun Violence in 1988 and also became national vice chairman of Handgun Control, Incorporated. As a leader of San Diegans Against Handgun Violence, he fought for gun safety and tougher gun laws. He was a true national leader in this fight. I will miss Stan Foster. He enriched many lives in California and throughout our Nation. Although we mourn the loss of a great leader, we will always remember his powerful voice for justice. His generosity and compassion will remain in our hearts, inspiring us to follow his unforgettable legacy.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, earlier this year our country was treated to ``Jazz,'' the latest documentary by Ken Burns. The ambitious, multi-part series traced the personalities, culture and, of course, music of jazz from its origins in turn of the century New Orleans until the present day. Like his critically acclaimed documentaries on the Civil War and baseball, Mr. Burns' production was as much a meditation on America and the nature of our democracy as it was an overview of jazz itself. For those who have not yet had a chance to see this wonderful exploration, I highly recommend it. Jazz is a distinctly American art form, born of many different influences and nurtured in a wide variety of contexts and communities. Although often over-shadowed by cities such as New Orleans, New York and Kansas City, San Francisco was and remains one such community. Over the years, it has been home and played host to many of jazz's greatest talents. Perhaps no musician better personifies San Francisco's connection and contributions to jazz than bassist Vernon Alley. Vernon Alley is a longtime San Franciscan. He grew up in the City and has maintained a band here off and on since the mid-forties. As jazz vocalist Jon Hendricks once remarked, ``[Vernon is] the dean of San Francisco jazz.'' Mr. Alley began his lifelong association with San Francisco and jazz when he accompanied his parents to see a performance by the incomparable Jelly Roll Morton at Maple Hall. Thus inspired, Vernon went on to dedicate his life to music. Arriving in New York as a young man at the high point of the swing era, he played with some of the biggest names in the business, including both the Lionel Hampton and Count Basie Orchestras. Always a sought after accompanist, in later years he would play with such other legends as Duke Ellington, Ella Fitzgerald, Dizzy Gillespie, Erroll Garner and more. Although he may have been able to gain wider exposure or acclaim if he remained in New York, Vernon returned to San Francisco after World War II. Here he is beloved, not only for the power, warmth and lyrical quality of his music, but also for his great personal charm. I have had the pleasure of meeting Vernon Alley and seeing him perform. He is a gifted and gracious man and certainly a Bay Area treasure. Vernon was honored this year at the prestigious San Francisco Jazz Festival with the SFJAZZ Beacon Award for his achievements in music and as a stalwart in the community. Mayor Willie Brown declared October 30, 2001 ``Vernon Alley Day.'' That evening Vernon joined 15 friends on the stage for a three and a half hour tribute concert. By all accounts it was night filled with joy and an appreciation of how the gifts of one man can be gifts to us all. I am greatly encouraged by what I see as a renewed sense of love for America and respect for its traditions and achievements. In Jazz, we see a reflection of ourselves at our finest. And in Vernon Alley we see the embodiment of jazz at its finest. For keeping this art form alive, we owe him our deepest thanks.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, on December 5, three American soldiers: Staff Sergeant Brian Cody Prosser, Master Sergeant Jefferson Donald Davis, and Sergeant First Class Daniel Henry Petithory, all members of the Fifth Special Forces Group, lost their lives near Kandahar, Afghanistan. My heart goes out to their families, their loved ones, and many friends for this sudden and unexpected loss. Cody Prosser was from Frazier Park, a small mountain community in my home State of California, where he is remembered as an idealistic young man and natural soldier, a patriot destined for military service. He was a local hero and star athlete, known for his leadership qualities on and off the football field. Cody joined the Army's Special Forces shortly after his high school graduation, and had served his country with pride and distinction for 10 years. Staff Sergeant Prosser paid the supreme price defending liberty and justice, and his sacrifice will never be forgotten. His name joins the ranks of other members of the armed forces who bravely died for our Nation. As America continues to respond to the horrific events of September 11, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Cody Prosser's outstanding, singular service and offering our heartfelt thanks to him and the others who gave their lives in defense of the freedoms we hold so dear. I extend my deepest condolences and the thanks of a grateful Nation to the family he left behind, his beloved wife Shawna, his brothers Mike, Reed and Jarudd Prosser, and loving parents Brian and Ingrid.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I say to Senator Daschle, I thank you for coming to the floor today and making a proposal that I do see as a breakthrough to, let's just say, some of the antagonism that has been on this floor and all over the news media. I want to say to my friend, and then just very quickly ask him a question, that I believe personally a test of leadership is, when you are in a fire, how you behave. I think a leader who behaves in a positive way, such as you have this morning, after what I consider to be an onslaught of harsh words, says a lot about you as a human being and as a leader leading this country. You are, in fact, the highest elected Democratic leader in the country today. This has made you a target. All I can say is, the way you stand up to this is coming to the floor and saying: Let's work together. I see a little light at the end of the tunnel from the Republicans on the other side. They have dropped their alternative minimum tax retroactive rebate to the largest corporations. I know that pleases my friend because here is a time of recession, and the House bill gave $1.4 billion to a company, IBM, for example--that is just one example-- that has earned $5, $6 billion. They have huge cash reserves. They are not going to spend that money to stimulate the economy. But people in the middle class are going to spend money. Then my friend sees that Senator Domenici has made a proposal that is, in fact, progressive that will help get this economy going. And he does not seem to care that it is coming from a Republican. He is grabbing on to that. So I first thank the majority leader. I just want to end with a question about your main difference with the new Republican proposal, and that is the acceleration of the rates. I would like to ask my leader why he believes this isn't good for the economy at this time to accelerate the rates of about 20 percent of the people, leaving 80 percent without any acceleration. If he could make that argument.

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