Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Let me speak a little bit about what has just occurred. We have had the Democratic leader, the majority leader of the Senate, offer a breakthrough on an economic stimulus plan by saying to our friends in the Republican Party: Save one item, we will be with you. We can craft a plan that will work, and substituting for that one item a payroll tax holiday for 1 month that was suggested by the ranking member on the Budget Committee, Senator Domenici. All we need now to get it done is for the President to weigh in. He is very popular in his efforts in the tough period we are going through. I have supported him essentially down the line on his war on terrorism. But when it comes to here at home, we need the same kind of focus, the same kind of commitment, the same kind of attention, the same kind of steely resolve that he has shown in carrying out this war on terror. We need that same thing here at home. After a weekend of being vilified by the Republican side all over the press, including the Vice President of the United States, who you would think would have better things to do than to attack the Democratic leader, he has come to this floor, turned the other cheek, as he always does, and said: I am ready to work. I see a light at the end of this tunnel. I am very excited about this prospect. As a former stockbroker many, many years ago, I spent a lot of time looking at the economy. This economy is very confusing in the sense it is sending confusing signals. Will this be a long-term recession? Will we come out of it? How does the war on terror play in one way or the other? These are difficult times, but we do know we need a response, a response that will give an immediate impetus to consumer spending in this country, a kind of response that will not have a long-term negative impact on our budget. Senator Daschle's patience, his leadership, his willingness to take a punch or two and still come back and be positive, these are all qualities we need in leaders. I am very happy. I know we have a lot of work to do on the farm bill. I will not go on much longer, except to say this is certainly the start of a new day for the economic stimulus package. I hope the President will weigh in. I hope Senator Daschle and the President will talk today, very soon, and that the President will bring his energy and focus to this issue. I believe it could be resolved in 24 hours. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER. Will the majority leader yield for a question?

Mrs. BOXER. I say to the assistant leader that his comments are right on target. I find it so strange that at this time they are attacking the Democratic leader, who is not only the leader of the Democrats in the Senate but of everyone. He is, in fact, the majority leader. He leads the Senate. So at a time when we have tried to come together, we have been supportive of this administration in the war against terrorism. And it seems that if you disagree with one another on anything, you are a target for attack. The irony of that is, what we are truly fighting for in this war against terror is our right to have our democracy, our freedom, our differences, whether it is political differences, religious differences, diversity, or to fight for the rights of women. After all, we know that in Afghanistan, or in the Taliban, I would never be allowed to show my face--not that it would be so terrible for everybody, but it would not be very nice for me. I have tried on a burqa and it is a frightening thing. When a Democrat in the Senate or in the House, steps out and says we think the President is doing a terrific job, but we have an opinion that it isn't smart to give retroactive tax cuts to the wealthiest corporations in America because, A, it won't stimulate the economy, B, it is unfair, and, C, it is going to hurt Social Security, somehow we are related to Saddam Hussein. Or if we don't want to drill in the Alaska wildlife refuge because we think it is pristine and a gift from God, we are criticized as playing into the hands of the terrorists. This is not right. I think our leader has shown the grace today that leaders should show more of, which is to come to this Chamber without rancor and say--not even address all of that and just say: I see a little light here; let's get to work. But does my friend not see the irony here of our being engaged in a war against people who don't want diversity of thought; yet when we step out here, we are criticized if we don't go down the line 100 percent?

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

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Let's be bipartisan when it comes to defending the homeland, just as we are so bipartisan when it comes to supporting our President in this fight abroad. My mother used to say, in the old days: Penny wise and pound foolish. It is something we always heard from our moms. You make these investments now. Last point. The President does not have to spend the money. The way Senator Byrd has structured it, it is entirely up to him. Why would he not want to have that insurance in his pocket so if we had another attack we would not have to immediately be clamoring for another session of Congress? Let's do the right thing and follow the leadership of Senator Byrd today. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I thank Senator Reid and my colleagues for giving me this 5 minutes in support of Senator Byrd's motion. We are living through a very difficult time in our history. This particular campaign we are in is unlike any other we have faced. There are people in our own country and perhaps in as many as 80 countries who are dedicated to harming our people. As has been noted, we have had more casualties in this campaign on the homefront, in the homeland, than we have actually had in the theater of war. We have a crisis to which we must respond. With his wisdom gained in almost 50 years in the Congress, Senator Byrd is leading us in a direction we should all follow. I am deeply distressed that the other side of the aisle does not seem to want to follow Senator Byrd's leadership. I have been in the Congress for 20 years, Senator Byrd for 49 years. The President of the United States has served in office, all told, 7 years as a Governor and a year as President. Our President has said it is important to be humble. I call on him to be humble and to listen to the words of a man who understands what the role of the Congress should be in this time of terror, Senator Robert Byrd. We are facing threats that we have never faced before. There is not any debate in this body on that. We are facing the threat of smallpox. Anyone who has seen the presentation called ``Dark Winter,'' anyone who has spoken to physicians, knows this is a disease that will kill one out of three people it strikes. This is a weapon of a terrorist. Will it ever strike? We pray to God, no. Could it strike? Yes. In what form? Will it be someone spraying this deadly disease at a mall? Or will it be a number of people getting on a plane with the disease? We don't know. Maybe it will never happen. And we pray it will never happen. But we know we only have 15 million doses of the vaccine. We are very hopeful it can be diluted to provide up to 77 million doses. But the fact is, we need to move quickly. I know our Secretary of Health and Human Services is moving to procure those vaccines. But we also need to buy antibiotics in case we get more anthrax cases. We need to find cures for diseases such as smallpox, Ebola virus. I have met with companies in California and other places that are working diligently to find cures for smallpox, for Ebola viruses, and other deadly viruses. We need the funding for that. Senator Byrd has done that. We all worked hard on an aviation security bill and the President signed that bill, but there is much more to be done. Just listen to Norman Mineta. He will tell you. We have to have more of the machines that check for bombs in cargo holds. The FAA has not even ordered more machines. I have talked to the companies. They can produce 50 a month, and Envision, one of the companies, has not gotten a phone call. There is not the money. We need more air marshals. We are getting some; we don't have near enough. We need the funding for that. I speak because on this one there is a hole in my heart. We lost 39 Californians. Every hijacked plane was heading for California. Those long-haul flights need air marshals. These flights had the heavy fuel loads and the light passenger loads. Those were the targets of the terrorists. We need more security at our nuclear plant facilities. We must have more security there. That costs money. You don't do that on the cheap. In California, we have two plants at San Onofre located at Camp Pendleton, two at Diablo Canyon near San Luis Obispo. They need the National Guard. They need permanent protection. We know about dirty bombs and what they can do--if they get their hands on that plutonium. We need to guard against that happening. Senator Byrd does that. Our own Homeland Security Director has talked about all of these issues. Yet we seem to have a partisan battle where there should be no room for partisanship. I ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, what are they against? The money for food safety? The money to fight bioterrorism? The money to give to our law enforcement throughout the land, working so hard, 12 and 14 hours a day, to ease their pain? To put more people on the ground? Are they against firefighter programs? Border security? Airport security? Nuclear plant security? How about U.S. ports, those vulnerabilities? We know what could happen if we do not protect our infrastructure. It is pretty simple to me. Senator Byrd has stepped out. There can be no one who has reached more across the aisle than Senator Byrd and Senator Stevens, that is for sure. We saw it a couple of minutes ago. So I say to my colleagues, let's be bipartisan. I ask for 30 additional seconds.

Mrs. BOXER. Yes.

Mrs. BOXER. It has become increasingly clear that the coordination between Federal, State and local law enforcement is crucial if we are to keep our citizens safe. The California Governor and Attorney General have combined their efforts and devised a system to meet these critical needs. The California Anti-Terrorism Information Center will provide law enforcement agencies with valuable intelligence support, enhancing their efforts to combat the threat of terrorism. I join my colleague in urging the Department of Justice to fund the California Anti-Terrorism Information Center.

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

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. S. 1769, Mr. President, I am introducing a bill to improve flood protection in Sacramento. This is a companion bill to one that Representative Matsui is introducing today in the House. Currently, Sacramento only has an 85-year flood protection. This bill would raise the existing walls of Folsom Dam by 7 feet, which would improve flood protection to 213 years. Without this improvement, $40 billion of property, including the California State Capitol, 6 major hospitals, 26 nursing home facilities, over 100 schools, three major freeway systems, and approximately 160,000 homes and apartments, are at risk of a devastating flood. For a city of its size, Sacramento falls shockingly below the 400 year-level of flood protection enjoyed by other river cities such as St. Louis, Tacoma, Dallas, and Kansas City. The Folsom mini raise is the critical next step in providing Sacramento with an adequate level of flood protection. Next year, the Environment and Public Works Committee, of which I am a member, will reauthorize the Water Resources and Development Act. I hope this bill will be included as part that legislation.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today, I am introducing a bill to honor a California, Richard J. Guadagno, who sadly lost his life on United Flight 93 when it crashed in Western Pennsylvania on September 11. This legislation will designate the Headquarters and Visitors Center of the Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge as the Richard J. Guadagno Headquarters and Visitors Center. Representative Thompson introduced this bill in the House. Mr. Guadagno was the manager of the Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge and devoted his life to the preservation of wildlife. As refuge manager at the Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge, he lead with a vision that his colleagues embraced and admired. He always keep the best interests of the refuge at heart, and he enthusiastically worked to improve the condition of the refuge. Colleagues in the Fish and Wildlife Service consistently commended his courage and dedication to conservation and protecting biological diversity. Mr. Guadagno began a career in public service as a biologist at the New Jersey Fish and Game Department and the Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge. Before joining the Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge, he worked at the Prime Hook National Wildlife Refuge in Delaware, Supawna Meadows National Refuge in New Jersey, and the Baskett Slough and Ankeny National Wildlife Refuges in Oregon. Richard Guadagno worked his entire life to preserve our Nation's wildlife. This legislation will ensure that we have a lasting memory of his work.

Mrs. BOXER. S. 1769, Mr. President, I am introducing a bill to improve flood protection in Sacramento. This is a companion bill to one that Representative Matsui is introducing today in the House. Currently, Sacramento only has an 85-year flood protection. This bill would raise the existing walls of Folsom Dam by 7 feet, which would improve flood protection to 213 years. Without this improvement, $40 billion of property, including the California State Capitol, 6 major hospitals, 26 nursing home facilities, over 100 schools, three major freeway systems, and approximately 160,000 homes and apartments, are at risk of a devastating flood. For a city of its size, Sacramento falls shockingly below the 400 year-level of flood protection enjoyed by other river cities such as St. Louis, Tacoma, Dallas, and Kansas City. The Folsom mini raise is the critical next step in providing Sacramento with an adequate level of flood protection. Next year, the Environment and Public Works Committee, of which I am a member, will reauthorize the Water Resources and Development Act. I hope this bill will be included as part that legislation.

Mrs. BOXER. I am very pleased to be joining Senator Feinstein today in the introduction of a bill that will help address California's water needs. We have worked closely together on this effort over the last year and I believe that this bill will help the CALFED program move forward in the right direction. In California, as in many parts of the West, water is our lifeblood. For decades, water allocation was conducted through endless appeals and lawsuits, and divisive ballot initiatives. Such battles were painful and, they prevented us from finding real solutions to our state's very real water problems. In 1994, a new state-federal partnership program called CALFED promised a better way--a plan to provide reliable, clean water to farms, businesses, and millions of Californians while at the same time restoring our fish, wildlife and environment. What has made CALFED work is that it employs a consensus approach that balances the needs of these various interests. This bill stays true to that balanced approach. It authorizes the continuation of the CALFED program over the next 5 years and provides for a federal contribution of $2.4 billion over that time period. The bill requires that the CALFED program goals of protecting drinking water quality, restoring ecological health, improving water supply reliability, and protecting Delta levees progress in a balanced manner. The bill describes a detailed set of reports that should be provided to Congress prior to approving any project costing over $10 million. This reporting process is designed to ensure that major projects are not approved until the environmental and economic impacts are clearly understood. I believe CALFED offers the best hope for ending California's intractable water wars. This bill will ensure that the CALFED program can continue its good work.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I am very pleased to be joining Senator Feinstein today in the introduction of a bill that will help address California's water needs. We have worked closely together on this effort over the last year and I believe that this bill will help the CALFED program move forward in the right direction. In California, as in many parts of the West, water is our lifeblood. For decades, water allocation was conducted through endless appeals and lawsuits, and divisive ballot initiatives. Such battles were painful and, they prevented us from finding real solutions to our state's very real water problems. In 1994, a new state-federal partnership program called CALFED promised a better way--a plan to provide reliable, clean water to farms, businesses, and millions of Californians while at the same time restoring our fish, wildlife and environment. What has made CALFED work is that it employs a consensus approach that balances the needs of these various interests. This bill stays true to that balanced approach. It authorizes the continuation of the CALFED program over the next 5 years and provides for a federal contribution of $2.4 billion over that time period. The bill requires that the CALFED program goals of protecting drinking water quality, restoring ecological health, improving water supply reliability, and protecting Delta levees progress in a balanced manner. The bill describes a detailed set of reports that should be provided to Congress prior to approving any project costing over $10 million. This reporting process is designed to ensure that major projects are not approved until the environmental and economic impacts are clearly understood. I believe CALFED offers the best hope for ending California's intractable water wars. This bill will ensure that the CALFED program can continue its good work.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today, I am introducing a bill to honor a California, Richard J. Guadagno, who sadly lost his life on United Flight 93 when it crashed in Western Pennsylvania on September 11. This legislation will designate the Headquarters and Visitors Center of the Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge as the Richard J. Guadagno Headquarters and Visitors Center. Representative Thompson introduced this bill in the House. Mr. Guadagno was the manager of the Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge and devoted his life to the preservation of wildlife. As refuge manager at the Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge, he lead with a vision that his colleagues embraced and admired. He always keep the best interests of the refuge at heart, and he enthusiastically worked to improve the condition of the refuge. Colleagues in the Fish and Wildlife Service consistently commended his courage and dedication to conservation and protecting biological diversity. Mr. Guadagno began a career in public service as a biologist at the New Jersey Fish and Game Department and the Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge. Before joining the Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge, he worked at the Prime Hook National Wildlife Refuge in Delaware, Supawna Meadows National Refuge in New Jersey, and the Baskett Slough and Ankeny National Wildlife Refuges in Oregon. Richard Guadagno worked his entire life to preserve our Nation's wildlife. This legislation will ensure that we have a lasting memory of his work.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. First, I want to say how proud I am you took to the floor to bring this to light. I think the American people are ill-served, as you do, when there are personal attacks on any of our leaders. Do we have differences? Yes. Should we express those differences? Absolutely. Because, frankly, I have a lot of people who say: What really is the difference between Democrats and Republicans? So the fact that we do not agree on an economic stimulus package is to be expected. The fact that the Democrats are fighting for people who lost their jobs, yes, that is to be expected. The fact that we do not think it is right to give big rebate checks to the largest and most wealthy corporations in America and call it a stimulus, the fact that we do not agree with it is to be expected. The fact that the other side would support that is to be expected. So debating that is fine. But my colleague has pointed out the viciousness of the attack against the leader of this Senate, Tom Daschle, who happens to be one of the kindest, most compassionate people in politics today, is something that cannot go by without a statement. So I say to my friend, by way of a question, isn't it true that the people of this country expect us to have differences, expect us, on domestic policy, to bring those differences to light, where we are so united on the terrorism front--and we support our President and our Secretary of State; and we are moving together in this fight; there are no differences really, not even around the edges on that. But isn't it a fact that it is fine for us to have these differences, but that these differences should be debated with respect, with fairness, and with dignity?

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

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Thank you, Mr. President. Let me repeat that. If we simply did one thing, and that is, got the SUVs to have the same fuel economy as a sedan--and, by the way, that is quite doable--we would, in 7 years, have ``produced'' enough oil to equal that of ANWR by saving it. By the way, that happens exponentially. In the next 7 years, there is another ANWR. Every 7 years you save another ANWR. So to stand in this Chamber and say the only way to become energy independent is by drilling in a refuge I just do not think stands the light of scrutiny. I am looking forward so much to having the debate on the energy bill, as Senator Daschle has promised. He is very interested in having that debate, as well, but he does not want to have that debate up against the December timeframe when we have so much to do relative to economic stimulus, when we are looking at bioterrorism. We must get the vaccines in place for smallpox. There is so much we need to deal with, including the appropriations conference reports. So I think Senator Daschle has done the right thing by setting aside a time, within 60 days, when we can have this debate. The President, using his Executive powers, overturned a rule that President Clinton put in place that said that air-conditioners should become more efficient. That particular rule was even supported by many of the people in the industry itself. By canceling that, we are again being beholden to Middle East oil. So there are so many things I want to talk about when that energy bill comes before us. In California, I drive a hybrid vehicle. If people look at you and say that sounds very strange, well, you fill it up with gas, just the same way you do any other car, and the computer within the car knows when it is more efficient to be running on gas or running on electricity. When you step on the brake, it charges the battery. So we are getting about 50 miles to the gallon. As someone who has been sharply critical of the increase in oil prices, finally they have come down. I am convinced regulatory agencies will not do a thing about high prices. We had them cold on what I believe was very close to price fixing. We had them cold on harassing independent station owners who wanted to lower prices. We had them cold on that. But we could not move the regulatory agencies. One way you fight back is you drive a car that gets 50 miles to the gallon. You can do it. You can buy it pretty cheaply. I encourage people to do that. So I do look forward to taking up the energy bill. On the issue, again, of stem cell research, this is one that is so important. I have seen a list of the groups that oppose Senator Brownback's 6-month moratorium. I think it is very important because sometimes you learn a lot from supporters and opponents. Let me read to you the list of opponents to the 6-month moratorium on stem cell research: Alliance for Aging Research, Alpha One Foundation, American Academy of Optometry, American Association of Cancer Research, American College of Medical Genetics, American Infertility Association, American Liver Foundation, American Physiological Society, American Society for Reproductive Medicine, American Society for Cell Biology, American Society of Hematology, Association of American Medical Colleges. All of these, and more, oppose, very strongly, a 6-month moratorium on stem cell research. Here are some others: Association of Professors of Medicine, Biotechnology Industry Organization, Coalition of National Cancer Cooperative Groups, Cure for Lymphoma, Genetic Alliance, Harvard University, Hope for ALS, the International Foundation for Anticancer Drug Discovery--and it goes on--the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation International--those folks came to visit many of us in our offices--the Kidney Cancer Foundation, Medical College of Wisconsin, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, National AIDS Treatment Advocacy Project, National Patient Advocate Foundation, Research America, Resolve, Society for Women's Health Research, and it goes on. So the bottom line is, we have a chance today, by voting against the Lott amendment, to send two very important messages: Yes, we want an energy policy, but we want it to be well thought out. There can be differences on whether the Alaska Wildlife Refuge is pristine, whether it is worth saving. I am willing to get into that debate. That is a fair debate. But wouldn't it be an interesting debate to find out what our other options are and then to decide if it is truly worth the gamble? People I know and respect say it isn't worth the gamble. And on stem cell research, clearly, it is time to continue this research while we ban human cloning. The Brownback amendment does not do that.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today's vote on the Lott amendment will be the beginning of the debate on two very important issues. One of them has to do with an energy bill, which, as we all know, our majority leader has scheduled for debate in less than 60 days. This particular version contains drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, as my colleague has discussed for many days now. My view is that if there are other ways to have an energy policy that leaves the wildlife refuge intact, I am for it. I will point out ways to avoid drilling in such a refuge. The second issue that is combined with it deals with stem cell research. In our vote, we will answer the question: Should we in this single vote not only say yes to drilling in ANWR but also say yes to derailing stem cell research by stopping it dead in its tracks, really, without looking at it? I don't see any problem in banning human cloning. I think we would get 100 to 0 on that one. It is a very easy thing that we can do. But why would we want to derail stem cell research? I am certainly willing to vote no on the Lott amendment that contains both of these issues: Drilling in the Alaska wildlife refuge and stopping stem cell research. The Senator from Alaska is quite open on the point of drilling and makes the case very well. He brings up a number of issues. First of all, he criticizes people who are for retaining the wildlife refuge if they have not actually gone to see it. Let me say that many of us have and some of us have tried. I sent one of my top environmental aides there and got a full report on it. The bottom line is, the Senator from Alaska and others have not seen every single national park, have not been into the Sierras in my State, into every little town. Yet they weigh in on logging debates. So that is a bogus issue. The issue is, How do we have better energy independence? I think I speak with some authority--a little bit, in any event--because in our State of California, we were hit with a horrific shortage of electricity, and it was even predicted we would have brownouts and blackouts and there would be rioting in the streets. The bottom line is, because the people in my State understood this, they began to be energy efficient, making very small changes in their daily lives that never even impacted on their comfort, really. We have saved about 11 percent in our energy use. We avoided all of these problems. My friend talks about the creation of jobs. This is an important issue. I know some of the unions are backing drilling because of that. Let me say to my friend, the fact is, if you produce energy-efficient appliances, you create many jobs. If you produce energy-efficient automobiles--hybrid vehicles; so many other ideas; electric cars--you will produce jobs. Alternative energy in itself produces jobs, whether it is solar power, wind power, whether it is biomass--all of these create jobs, and not only good jobs, but the whole green technology is a technology that we can export around the world as the whole world looks for ways not to choke on gasoline fumes. We can do it. We can do it and meet our energy needs and become independent of imported oil. I find it so interesting when my friends from Alaska talk because they fought me when I wanted to make sure there was a ban on exporting Alaskan oil. We used to have that in place because I made the point, as many of my colleagues did at the time, that we needed that oil to stay home in America because we wanted energy independence. But both my friends fought to allow us to export Alaskan oil. I find it very interesting. So we have so many ways we can win this energy battle. One way is to raise the fuel economy standards of automobiles. Just take SUVs. If the SUVs met the same standard as a regular sedan, in 7 years we would save as much oil as there is in ANWR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 5 minutes.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I say we would stop it at the implantation stage.

Mrs. BOXER. I would oppose a cloned embryo being implanted so you have a human being at the end of 9 months.

Mrs. BOXER. We agree on that then.

Mrs. BOXER. How far back do you want to go?

Mrs. BOXER. I will go for that definition that you cannot place a humanly cloned embryo into a woman's uterus. I would go for it. I understand my friend supports in vitro fertilization. I do, too. We would not deal with that. If it is, in fact, a cloned embryo, absolutely I would walk down the aisle with you on that in a moment, in a heartbeat.