Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Senator.

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

Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent to ask a question.

Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Senator. The problem with the Senator's suggestion--and I will ask a question--is that he wants to stop everything. I say to my friend that we could probably reach agreement pretty quickly around here because I support legislation to ban human cloning. I know most people I have spoken to, if not all, agree. Of course, that occurs when you use the stem cells and you transfer them into a woman's uterus. We can stop that in a minute, but my friend would like to stop everything, and that is why I so strongly support Senator Specter, Senator Harkin, and Senator Kennedy, who have been our leaders on this subject. What we are saying is, we should allow stem cell research to continue to bring our people cures to these diseases that plague them. I do not know about in your State--and I am sure it is reflected in my State-- but if you ask people: Who is touched by Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, spinal cord injuries, diabetes and juvenile diabetes, who is touched by these diseases, who fears these diseases, one will find it is almost every individual. We all agree to ban human cloning. That is not the problem. But my friend is taking an extreme position which will shut down the applied research into possible cures for these diseases. Therefore, there is strong opposition to the position of my friend. If he were to march down with us and ban human cloning, the implantation of the nucleus into a woman, then we would walk down the road together. But we think stopping everything is unfair. Does my friend understand the debate in that sense? I hope he understands we are with him on banning human cloning but not stopping stem cell research to cure diseases.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, on October 26th, I was deeply saddened to learn of the passing of San Francisco Bay Area resident, Donald Tayer. I have known Don Tayer and his family since the beginning of my career in public office, when I served as a Marin County supervisor and Don served as councilmember and mayor of the town of Tiburon. He was a multitalented man who cared deeply for his community. In addition to his work as a local elected official, Don Tayer forged a distinguished legal career as a senior partner in the firm of Beeson, Tayer & Bodine. For 25 years, he served as Executive Secretary in the San Francisco office of the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA) and the Screen Actors Guild; he served as counsel to the Actors' Equity Association and the American Guild of Musical Artists; he was the very first recipient of the Annual Bill Hillman Award, in recognition of his service to AFTRA's San Francisco local; and in August of this year he received AFTRA's National George Heller Memorial Gold Card--the highest honor bestowed by the union--for his many and remarkable contributions. He was an adjunct professor in the School of Urban and Public Affairs at Golden Gate University and former chairman of the Labor and Employment Law Section of the Bar Association of San Francisco. Don also somehow found the time to enjoy a rich cultural and community life. He was president of the San Francisco Bay Area Chapter of the American Jewish Committee for 5 years, and continued to serve as a member of the Committee's National Board of Governors. He was a recipient of its Distinguished Service Award in 1987. Don Tayer served on the Marin Arts Council and was both president and a member of the Board of Directors of San Francisco's Center for the Arts at Yerba Buena Gardens--where a memorial tribute will be held on December 1st. I offer my condolences to Don's wonderful wife Joyce; to his children Lisa and Marc and his four grandchildren.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I am pleased that Congress has finally acted on this extremely important issue. Even if the terrible plane crash earlier this week wasn't necessarily terrorism, everyone in Congress had to feel in the pit of their stomachs that tomorrow it could be a bomb. Congress needed to act to ensure the American public that our Nation's aviation security system will be the best it can be or Americans will not fly. On September 11, our Nation's aviation system was transformed into a terrorist weapon. The United States was caught off-guard. Sadly, with aviation security, we should not have been. That is why we needed to pass this legislation. All four planes hijacked were headed for my State of California. Consequently, many Californians who were simply trying to make their way home lost their lives in these attacks. That is why I am particularly pleased that this legislation will ensure that all high risk flights will have air marshals aboard them. And, the Secretary of Transportation is to give priority to long- distance flights--such as those targeted on September 11. That is extremely important for Californians. I am also pleased that this legislation will allow airports to be reimbursed and to use grant funds to pay for security costs. Our airports have been hit hard to meet new Federal security standards. For example, between September 11 and the end of October, Los Angeles International Airport spent $15.3 million on increased security costs. The funds in this bill will allow our airports to continue to operate our aviation infrastructure while providing the highest levels of security. This bill also makes a significant improvement in passenger screeners. Federal law enforcement personnel will conduct passenger screening, instead of private low-paid workers. We could not allow the same companies to continue to be in charge of passenger screening. This bill makes great strides forward in making our skies more secure and ensuring that the events of September 11 never happen again.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I yield myself 5 minutes in opposition to the Enzi amendment.

Mrs. BOXER. Thank you very much, Madam President. I rise in strong opposition to the Enzi amendment, and I hope we will defeat it by a very strong bipartisan vote. I have read this amendment over and over. It has changed mightily during the last month or so. But it is very clear to me that if this amendment were to become law--by the way, the House would never allow it to become law. But let's say it could become law. I think it would wreak havoc on Internet commerce. Let me tell you why. Look at page 3 of the amendment. Look at section 3, and look at paragraph A. There is a 1, which clearly states that Internet service providers could be forced to go back retroactively to 1998 and remit Internet access taxes to the States. Can you imagine the burden that would put on this country at a time in our history when we are in a major recession? Second, Senator Enzi's amendment would not prohibit new taxes on Internet access and, although it would keep the moratorium on ``discriminatory and multiple'' taxes, it may not prevent ``new'' taxes on electronic commerce. Finally, I want to state that these are statements made by my friend and colleague from Oregon, Ron Wyden, in a far more articulate way than I. I am trying to underscore what he said. If you look at page 4, you see that the Enzi proposal would allow taxes on Internet content. It is very clear that the moratorium on Internet access taxes would no longer apply to Internet content. Can you imagine people connecting to the Internet and suddenly being charged every time perhaps they connected to the Web? In my view, this is a very dangerous kind of amendment because if it does become law it will wreak havoc on business on the Internet, and not only business, but just the right to get on the Web and read content and to be able to do that without extra charges. This is not the time for that. Madam President, this was updated as of October 5, 2001. The Wall Street Journal has printed 30 pages of companies that have gone out of business. I will give you some of them. AdMart: announced plans to shut down, lay off 334 employees. Advertising.com: announced plans to lay off 72 employees, or 25 percent of its staff. And it goes on and on and on. You will remember some of these companies. We remember the Webvan that went out of business. But it just goes on and on. You would recognize some of these companies. Is this a time, I would ask my colleagues, to go after this industry? It is the wrong time. It is the wrong time, and it is a dangerous time. I will give you some more examples. Barnes & Noble.com said in February 2001 it will cut 350 jobs, or 60 percent of its workforce. Beautyjungle.com, a cosmetics seller, laid off 60 percent of their workforce and then shut down. I will go on. eToys: In January 2001, it said it would lay off 700 people, or 70 percent of its workforce. In February 2001, it said it would let go the remaining 293 employees by April. Later in February, it said it would file for bankruptcy protection. Here is the Webvan Group story. Cut staff in April 2001 by 30 percent or 885 employees. They also closed operations in Sacramento, CA, and in Atlanta, the latest in a series of shutdowns. In July 2001, they announced plans to close all remaining operations and terminate 2,000 employees. The general economy is in trouble. We have seen more layoffs in 1 month than we have in 21 years.

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

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, the Senate is not in order.

Mrs. BOXER. So, in closing, this amendment is flawed. It will allow new Internet access taxes. It will force the collection of Internet access taxes going back to 1998. It will allow taxing on content. And it comes at a time when the economy is tanking. For goodness sakes, we cannot even get an economic stimulus package passed, and the first thing we do, late on a Thursday night, is look at ways to get more people laid off. I hope we will vote, in a bipartisan way, against the Enzi amendment. I yield back my time.

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for 30 seconds to conclude my remarks.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Seeing no one else on the floor, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 5 minutes for a total of 10 minutes.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I think you were in the House at that time as well, when we closed that terrible loophole and we made sure these companies, these companies that were popping champagne corks on tax day because they paid nothing in the defense of their country, paid nothing to educate one child, they paid nothing to give health care to one child, and we said that was wrong and we walked down the path and we put in a fair alternative minimum tax. Here they are, boys; they are back. They are back and they are trying to go back to those days when the largest corporations in America paid zero. Again, to use the 9-11 tragedy as an excuse to do this is beyond my ability to express. I usually don't have too much trouble, but this is horrific. Let's not go back to those days in the 1980s. I will give an example. Senator Robert Byrd told a story about a woman in Milwaukee, the mother of three children, who in 1983 earned $12,000. On that income, she paid more taxes than Boeing, GE, DuPont, and Texaco put together. Welcome back to those days, if you go with that House plan. Senator Grassley just does away with this prospectively. The House gives them a rebate for the past. He doesn't do that, but he does away with it for the future. So I will be able to stand up here, if he prevails, and say the same thing next year: A woman earning $12,000 paid more in taxes than all these corporations together. I do not want to go there. Here is the bottom line. We have the best economist in the world telling us the House plan and the Senate Republican bill will make things worse. That is Joseph Stiglitz, awarded the Nobel Prize in economics last month. He says the family earning $50,000 would get zero, but the Republican plan would give $50,000 over 4 years to families making $4 million a year. What are we doing? This is a time we need to get money into this economy. We need to jump-start this economy. It started to go down when President Bush came in. With 9-11, it has gone straight this way. We better do something that gets it going. So we have a lot of work to do. I can only hope the American people will weigh in, in this debate, and understand the average American with the Republican plan gets nothing, gets big deficits again that will fall on their children, and the big corporations and the most wealthy among us will be ready to pop their champagne corks. That is not fair. It is not just. It is not what 9-11 was all about. I hope we can stop it, come together, and have a fair plan for all Americans. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER. I ask for 4 additional minutes.

Mrs. BOXER. I ask for 5 additional minutes.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I have not spoken on the floor of the Senate in a long time. The issues have been coming fast and furiously toward us. Today I will discuss with my colleagues in the Senate the very important economic stimulus bill. Beyond that, before I turn to that bill, I will discuss what I consider to be the three most pressing matters to deal with, in addition to our normal appropriations work. One of those is certainly this economic stimulus package. The last economic data we had showed the greatest loss of jobs in 1 month for 21 years. It has been 21 years since we have lost so many jobs in 1 month. We must take up this economic stimulus bill. We have been hit hard by the terrorists, and before that we were beginning to see a slowdown in our economy. The combination of the two is simply not acceptable. Another pressing need is aviation security. I say in no uncertain terms I cannot say what the President says to the American people: Get in those planes and fly. I want to say those words, and I will say those words when we have passed the laws we need to pass to make flying as safe as possible. We do not now screen and check all the bags that are in the underbelly of the planes. We don't check and screen the cargo for bombs. No, we do not. We do not have screeners who are a well-trained security force. We do not have air marshals on every flight. We do not have yet a secure cockpit always locked and not open during the flight. These are four basic measures we have learned are the key to aviation security. El Al, that runs the Israeli airline, has told us very clearly: There are no secrets; these are the things we have to do. When we do those things, I will look in the eyes of your constituent and mine, and I will say not what I am saying today, which is, yes, it is safer than it was on September 11; but I can look at them and say the skies are as safe as we can make them. To be a Pollyanna, to stand up and say, come fly with me--as the Frank Sinatra song goes--I cannot do it. I fly a lot. I am in the air a lot to do my work. As I said, I know we are safer than we were before September 11, but we are nowhere near where we should be. I call on the conferees to get moving. I call on the House Republican leaders to get off their ideological problems and understand the same old way of doing business with private security handling the bags is a failure. That is something we must do right away. We also need a package for homeland defense or homeland security. Senator Byrd has a wonderful, well-thought-out package which will become, I hope, part of the economic stimulus at a later time. It is modest in its approach but will allow us to vaccinate every man, woman, and child against smallpox and, God forbid if we have to, against anthrax, and develop the kind of work we need to prevent bioterrorism, protect our nuclear powerplants. Again, airport security, chemical plants, and we will give special grants to law enforcement, local and State, and rebuild our public health system so when we have a problem the local people, the first responders, will have the wherewithall to do what it takes. I am very happy that Senator Byrd will be doing this. It ought to become part of the stimulus package because not only do we need it for the defense of our country, but we also know those dollars will be spent and every one of those dollars will help provide jobs. That gets me to where we are right now, this economic stimulus package dealing with tax cuts. If you want to see the difference between Republicans and Democrats, if you are sitting at home and scratching your head and saying, aren't these guys and gals all alike, I say take a look at this package. What do the Republicans do, to the tune of more than $20 billion over 10 years? They give big dollars to those who have them--surprise. They give $1.4 billion to IBM. The last I checked, they earned $5.7 billion in the year 2000. The last I checked they were laying off people, not hiring people. Is that what we want to do, reward them for that? Ford Motor, a $1 billion refund check; their corporate profits were $9.4 billion. General Motors, $833 million? Their corporate profits in 2000 were $2.9 billion. And, GE, a $671 million refund check. Their corporate profits were $9.3 billion. I do not know how to say this in a way that doesn't sound harsh, but in the nicest way I can say it, it is this. I believe you have said it in your way as well, Mr. President. For people to use the 9-11 tragedy, which you felt in your State--in your heart, with perhaps a few of you in this body more than any of us--to use 9-11 as an excuse to do something that these Republicans have wanted to do since the minute they took over control of the Congress, which is to reward their biggest contributors, is nothing less than unpatriotic. It is my feeling. It is how I feel. It is my opinion. It is not a fact. It is my opinion. Let my say it again. To use 9-11 as an excuse to pay back your biggest contributors--who are laying off people, by the way, and who are doing just fine, thank you very much--is a disgrace. If you want to see the difference in the parties, look at our tax cuts. They deal with ways to stimulate investment by businesses by giving a bonus depreciation to encourage investments in capital equipment, additional depreciation for small business, net operating loss carrybacks that will help companies that have done well in the last few years but not as well recently to get an immediate tax refund, and we propose giving tax rebates to those who were left out earlier this year. I know Republicans have that provision as well. But the lion's share of what they do is this--and how about this--escalate the tax breaks so the wealthiest people among us get back $16,000 a year. That is not $16,000 over 10 years. That is $16,000 in a year. Those are the people earning over $1 million a year. Thank you--they are doing fine, and they are not going to spend the money. We had an interesting meeting with the former Treasury Secretary who presided over the greatest economic recovery our country has ever seen, Robert Rubin. He told us that those in that top bracket are not going to spend that money. They are spending everything they can spend. These corporations are not going to put anybody to work when they get their refund checks. These are the people who are slimming down, who are cutting back. So what kind of economic stimulus is the Republican plan? It is a giveaway to the wealthiest people at the expense of everybody else. And, might I add, it is a budget buster. It is a budget buster. When you look at the costs of the Grassley plan and the House plan, what are we looking at over the period? We are looking at about $170 billion over the period. When we look at our plan, even if you add on the homeland security, you are looking at about $60 billion over the 10- year period. So they are bringing us right back into the deficit hole where they took us in the first place and it took a Democratic administration to get us out of that mess. Now they are putting us right back in the mess, deficits as far as the eye can see. To do what? Help the richest people in the country, the richest corporations. I remember the days when there wasn't an alternative minimum tax because I was over on the House side when we decided it was outrageous that the biggest corporations in the country were paying zero taxes. I remember that.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I would like to take this opportunity to bring to the Senate's attention the wonderful and necessary work of Center Point, Inc. in California. Center Point is preparing to celebrate its 30th anniversary of service to the community. This milestone is a testament to the success of its programs and the life affirming and life-changing nature of its mission. I could not be happier for Center Point CEO Sushma Taylor and the organization's dedicated staff and extended family. Begun in 1971, in my home county of Marin, Center Point has since developed into a model community services provider, assisting at-risk families and individuals of all ages with issues ranging from drug and alcohol addiction, to homelessness, to HIV/AIDS, to job training. Each year it serves over 8,000 individuals through its residential, outpatient, housing and in-custody programs. These efforts not only serve to rescue individual lives, they have the power to heal families and ultimately transform whole communities. I believe strongly in the work being done at Center Point and at similar facilities around California and the Nation. We need to encourage and enable these programs that are making a difference. I introduced my Treatment on Demand Assistance Act this year to do just that. My bill would double the Federal Government's funding for drug and alcohol treatment over 5 years, from the current $3 billion to $6 billion. It also provides for incentives to States that have instituted a policy of emphasizing treatment over incarceration for non-violent drug offenders. Treatment works. When we invest in it and other programs proven to improve lives, we are investing in a safer, healthier future for us all. Center Point has been proving this for 30 years.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am pleased that the conference report on the VA-HUD Appropriations bill includes a provision requiring the Bush administration to end its delay of the Clinton rule establishing a tougher standard on arsenic in drinking water. The statutory language is similar to the amendment I offered to this bill, which passed the Senate 97-1. This language will result in a 10 parts per billion standard for arsenic and will ensure the community's right to know when unhealthy levels of arsenic are present in the drinking water I am concerned, however, about language in the conference report. It says that the Administrator should focus on developing procedures that would result in extensions of time for small systems to comply with the arsenic standard. Clearly, those extensions would have to be consistent with the Safe Drinking Water Act requirements. But they would only result in further delay. In addition, the Administrator is asked to report to Congress on legislative proposals that address further extensions of time for compliance by small systems. The focus of EPA's limited resources should be on helping these systems to accelerate compliance--by providing technical and financial assistance--not on how to further delay compliance. As a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, that will be my focus. I will be working to provide funding for small communities to meet the 10 parts per billion standard, and I will not support legislative proposals that provide additional extensions and delay even more the time when all Americans have safer drinking water.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Illinois for his leadership this afternoon on behalf of children and families who perhaps have the softest voice. Why do I say that? It is because these families are struggling with children who have disabilities, who are unable to speak for themselves, who need to get special help in school and sometimes have to fight and struggle and work to get that help. I believe the amendment that was just adopted by this body on a narrow vote sends a very bad message. It sends a message that disabled children, children in need of special education, simply are not as important as a governmental entity that has an unlimited ability to hire the highest paid attorneys. In the case of the District, I have learned that, in fact, the District does go to the private sector, does throw the best they can against these children and against their families. There is no limit, as my friend from Illinois pointed out, on the attorneys the school district decides to hire. Yet this onerous amendment that was just adopted quite narrowly treats these children differently. We have the greatest country in the world, and in these days more than ever we have come to recognize that every minute of every hour of every day. One of the reasons is that before the law, everyone is equal. That is what we stand for: Before the law, everyone is equal. But when we say to a governmental entity it can pay whatever it wants against a family who has a child in need of special help, but then we restrict the kind of attorney, the number of dollars that can go to fight that child's battle, we are setting up a playing field that is not level. That is why I am so happy the Senator from Illinois, with the support of the chair of the subcommittee, Senator Landrieu, has put forward this amendment for the two of us because what we are saying is: Let's take a look at these children. Let's not just have some vague amendment that says attorney's fees shall be limited. That always looks good on a voting record, but if we dig a little bit, what do these kids look like? A lot of them are living in poverty. A lot of them are abused and neglected. Some have parents, one or two, who served in the military who may be disabled. These families need special help for these special children. I am very proud to be a cosponsor of this amendment. I look forward to a resounding vote which will, in fact, change the amendment we just adopted and say in these circumstances, which will cover many children I am happy to note, we will not have this double standard. I thank the Chair, and I reserve the remainder of the time for Senator Durbin.

Mrs. BOXER. Reserving the right to object, could we find out if it said ``on'' or ``in relation to.'' If not, the motion would be in order.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 2058

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise today to engage in a short colloquy with the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development--the distinguished Senator from Nevada, Mr. Reid. It is my desire to clarify the intent of the language included in the conference agreement of the Energy and Water appropriations bill.

Mrs. BOXER. I thank the distinguished chairman.

Mrs. BOXER. I want to clarify that the Human Genome Project at the University of Southern California listed in title III Department of Energy, under the science biological and environmental research account should have been noted as the National Center for Neurogenetic Research and Computational Genomics at the University of Southern California. This project is clearly worthy of Federal support, and I wanted to ensure that the intent of Congress with respect to this language is clear.