Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I am very pleased to be offering this amendment which deals with afterschool programs in our country. The purpose of this amendment is very clear. It is to ensure that every child who needs an afterschool program in our Nation will have that opportunity. This amendment does that by authorizing sufficient funds over the next 6 years so that no child has to be a latchkey child. What do I mean by a latchkey child? That is a child who comes home after school, both parents are working, no one is in the home, and they, in some cases, can get into trouble. How do we know this? We know this because the FBI tells us that most crime occurs among juveniles right after school. One can see on this chart that the juvenile crime rate peaks at the hour of 3 p.m. and continues and finally starts to go down in the evening hours. We know that juvenile crime occurs after school; that latchkey children do get into trouble after school. It is very clear. That is why we have so many police officers all over this Nation supporting our amendment and supporting afterschool programs in general. If one looks at this chart, one can see all of the various law enforcement organizations that support the amendment of Senator Ensign and myself: The National Association of Police Athletic and Activity Leagues, Fight Crime, Invest in Kids, National Sheriffs Association, Major Cities Police Chiefs, Police Executive Research Forum, National District Attorneys Association, California District Attorneys Association, Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police, Texas Police Chiefs Association, Arizona Sheriffs and Prosecutors Association, Maine Chiefs and Sheriffs Associations, Rhode Island Police Chiefs' Association. This is a partial list of police organizations across the country that support this amendment. They understand that once a crime is committed and they are called in, it is very late in the game. I have talked with police officers who look me in the eye and say there used to be a divide between the social workers and the police officers when it came to juvenile crime. There is no longer a divide. The police officers understand, because they are on the street, that if kids are kept busy and they are kept happy, we see a lessening of the crime rate, and that is why quality afterschool programs are so important. I am very pleased that with Senator Jeffords' leadership, along with Senator Kennedy, we have sufficient funding in this year's bill of $1.5 billion for the year 2002. If we play that out, which is what we do in our legislation, and we continue the increase just to meet the need, we will be able to cover 7 million children in afterschool programs by the year 2008. This bill is about reform, and I am for reform, but clearly if we reform our schools during the day, but then kids are left to fend for themselves after school, all the benefits of that reform and testing could well be lost. That is why it is so important that we add this afterschool component, not just for this year as we have in this bill but we play it out for the 6-year authorization. We need places that are safe for our children, protected places, productive places for them to go. Let me show a couple pictures because pictures tell a story and are worth a thousand words. This is a photo from our Sacramento afterschool program where they have called in special people. This gentleman is an expert with animals. He brought in this crocodile. The kids are so taken with it. One can see the look on their faces. These kids are happy, they are excited, they are happy to be in school, they are learning about nature, and they are not getting into trouble. I have another photograph. This one is also from Sacramento. One can see the young people are engaged in a board game, and there is an older mentor sitting with them. Again, they are productive and happy. It is another way of showing what afterschool programs can do. It is instructive to hear what the kids themselves say about afterschool programs. There is a great program in Los Angeles called LA's Best. I have visited it. It is a shining example of what we can do right for our children. This is a student at 68th Street Elementary School: LA's Best is the best place to be after school. I like the games and the work. I like going to the computer lab . . . I like going to the library, but most of all I like the people. And then we have another student from Hillcrest Drive Elementary School: If we didn't have LA's Best, I would probably still be going home to an empty house. No child should have to go home to an empty house. No child should have to be tempted to get into trouble after school. We can do this. I often say that it was Dwight Eisenhower who really started the Federal role in education. It is true the States do the majority of it, but what he pointed out was that when there is a void, we have an obligation to move in to assist the schools--not tell them what to do but to offer them the resources. That is what this amendment is all about. We are taking your $1.5 billion, Mr. President, that you have put in this bill and we are extending it out so we can make sure every schoolchild in this country gets afterschool supervision. At this time, it is my pleasure to yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Nevada, Mr. Ensign, who is the original cosponsor of my amendment.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mrs. BOXER. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mrs. BOXER. I am taken with my colleague's analysis because there are very few things we do that have such a beneficial effect in so many ways. As my colleague said: We are looking at a program, after school, that helps kids improve their scores; that is, the academic achievement. We are seeing a program that keeps kids out of trouble. That is why all the police organizations support after school, and the PAL group supports it. We are talking about a reduction in teen pregnancy, which is absolutely documented because of these programs. We are talking about the ability of kids to learn to work together. There is one other thing, I say to my friend, he didn't mention directly, but he hinted at it. If there is a child who falls through the cracks who may have an emotional problem--and we all looked at this when we looked at the Columbine tragedy and other places where kids have acted out in horrible ways. It is a chance for a professional to see a child who really needs help. It gives a chance for that one-on-one. My colleague from Nevada pointed out that there is a chance for kids to learn better English, make sure their skills in the language are improved. It is very rare that you see a program that does so many things. Of course, someone is going to slip through the cracks. But this is one that I think is so crucial. I am proud to have the support of my colleague from Massachusetts and the Senator from Vermont.

Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield?

Mrs. BOXER. OK. I yield 6 minutes.

Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Feingold be given 6 minutes to speak on another topic since no one else is in the Chamber to speak against my amendment. We can take the rest of the time or whatever the Presiding Officer wishes.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, earlier this week, this country suffered a tremendous loss with the passing of Steve Green. Steve was a veteran reporter and editorial columnist and a very dear person. He worked as a journalist for forty years, covering issues ranging from Congress to national security to social policy. I got to know Steve as he kept a watchful on Congress for the Copley News Service and the San Diego Union-Tribune. He had a quick wit, a keen intellect and a great nose for a story. Above all, he was scrupulously fair in his reporting. And he believed that as a journalist it was his role in life to help this country realize its tremendous potential. How very blessed we are that Stephen used his talent with words and his insight to make us a better, more informed people. With a wink Steve could puncture the biggest ego. He had the uncanny ability to be skeptical without being cynical. He cared for the people he covered without coddling them. He followed serious issues without losing his sense of humor. Let me read from an article filed by Steve's colleague and Copley News veteran reporter Findlay Lewis: Mr. Green's 40-year newspaper career embraced a range of interests and assignments, including a political column that was syndicated around the country. In recent years, his reporting focused on Congress, national security issues and social welfare policy. His work in these and other areas earned him a reputation as a quick study and an incisive writer, who could quickly penetrate to the heart of complex issues. ``Steve Green was a colleague I admired greatly,'' said Herbert G. Klein, editor in chief of Copley Newspapers. ``He thrived on professionalism, which leaves a great legacy for all to follow. He was a man of enormous courage.'' A native of Malden, Mass., he graduated from Boston's Northeastern University, where he began his newspaper career. While pursuing his undergraduate degree, Mr. Green filed stories for the wire services and several Boston dailies, and also served as editor of the college newspaper. Former colleagues at the [Washington] Star describe Mr. Green in those years as a tireless reporter, who never allowed himself to be beaten on a story by rivals from the larger and better-staffed Washington Post. ``He had a knack for getting scoops,'' recalled Barbara Cochran, one of his editors at the time and president of the Radio-Television News Directors Association. ``When he had a good story going he would get this grin on his face--when he felt he had the goods.'' His tenure at the [Washington] Post was followed by an editing stint at the Miami News before arriving at The San Diego Union in 1979 as state and politics editor. In the latter capacity, Mr. Green directed the Union's coverage of the 1980 presidential election and of the state political campaigns two years later. In 1983, Mr. Green joined the Union's editorial board before returning to Washington in January 1984 to fill the newly created position of managing editor in the Washington Bureau of the Copley News Service. Considered a shrewd student of American politics and foreign affairs by his peers, Mr. Green pursued those interests in a column syndicated by the news service and given frequent prominent display by The Washington Times on its op-ed page. By the early 1990s, Mr. Green had returned to reporting, providing coverage of Congress, a beat that he knew well from his duty with Washington newspapers. He wrote in depth about the financing problems likely to confront the nation's social welfare programs, such as Social Security and Medicare, and also played a role in the bureau's coverage of President Clinton's impeachment crisis in the Congress. He later took over the Pentagon beat before falling ill. Survivors include his wife, Ginny Durrin of Washington, a film maker; two daughters from his first marriage--Jennifer Green of San Jose, and Alison Green of Arlington, Va.; brother, Edward Green of Rockville, Md.; sister, Judy Schoen of Lawrenceville, N.J.; and a granddaughter also survive him. Steve Green was a wonderful man, a wonderful journalist and anyone who knew him will miss him deeply.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing a bill to protect children from the dangers posed by pollution and toxic chemicals in our environment. The Children's Environmental Protection Act, (CEPA), is based on the fact that children are not small adults. Children eat more food, drink more water, and breathe more air as a percentage of their body weight than adults. Children also grow rapidly, and therefore are physiologically more vulnerable to toxic substances than adults. This makes them more susceptible to the dangers posed by those substances. How is this understanding that children suffer higher risks from the dangers posed by toxic and harmful substances taken into account in our environmental and public health standards? Do we gather and consider data that specifically evaluates how those substances affect children? If that data is lacking, do we apply extra caution when we determine the amount of toxics that can be released into the air and water, the level of harmful contaminants that may be present in our drinking water, or the amount of pesticides that may be present in our food? In most cases, the answer to all of these questions is ``no.'' In fact, most of these standards are designed to protect adults rather than children. In most cases, we do not even have the data that would allow us to measure how those substances specifically affect children. And, in the face of that uncertainty, we generally assume that what we don't know about the dangers toxic and harmful substances pose to our children won't hurt them. We generally don't apply extra caution to take account of that uncertainty. CEPA would change the answers to those questions from ``no'' to ``yes.'' It would childproof our environmental laws. CEPA is based on the premise that what we don't know about the dangers toxic and harmful substances pose to our children may very well hurt them. CEPA would require the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to set environmental and public health standards to protect children. It would require EPA to explicitly consider the dangers that toxic and harmful substances pose to children when setting those standards. Finally, if EPA discovers that it does not have specific data that would allow it to measure those dangers, EPA would be required to apply an additional safety factor, an additional measure of caution, to account for that lack of information. The Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996 included my amendment to require EPA to set drinking water standards at safe levels for children. All of our environmental laws should reflect the special needs of children. CEPA would ensure that children's health risks are properly taken into account. This process would, I acknowledge, take some time. So, while EPA is in the process of updating the standards, CEPA would provide parents and teachers with a number of tools to immediately protect their children from toxic and harmful substances. First, CEPA would require EPA to provide all schools and day care centers that receive federal funding a copy of EPA's guide to help schools adopt a least toxic pest management policy. CEPA would also prohibit the use of dangerous pesticides--those containing known or probably carcinogens, reproductive toxins, acute nerve toxins and endocrine disrupters--in those areas. Under CEPA, parents would also receive advance notification before pesticides are applied on school or day care center grounds. Second, CEPA would expand the federal Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) to require the reporting of toxic chemical releases that may pose special risks to children. In particular, CEPA provides that releases of small amounts of lead, mercury, dioxin, cadmium and chromium be reported under TRI. These chemicals are either highly toxic, persist in the environment or can accumulate in the human body over many years-- all features that render them particularly dangerous to children. Lead, for example, will seriously affect a child's development, but is still released into the environment through lead smelting and waste incineration. CEPA would then require EPA to identify other toxic chemicals that may present special risks to children, and to provide that releases of those chemicals be reported under TRI. Third, CEPA would direct EPA to create a list of recommended safer- for-children products that minimize potential risks to children. Finally, CEPA would require EPA to create a family right-to-know information kit that would include practical suggestions to help parents reduce their children's exposure to toxic and harmful substances in the environment. My CEPA bill is based on the premise that what we don't know about the dangers that toxic and harmful substances pose to our children may very well hurt them. It would require EPA to apply caution in the face of that uncertainty. And, ultimately, it would childproof our environmental laws to ensure that those laws protect the most vulnerable among us--our children. I encourage my colleagues to support this bill.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing a bill to protect children from the dangers posed by pollution and toxic chemicals in our environment. The Children's Environmental Protection Act, (CEPA), is based on the fact that children are not small adults. Children eat more food, drink more water, and breathe more air as a percentage of their body weight than adults. Children also grow rapidly, and therefore are physiologically more vulnerable to toxic substances than adults. This makes them more susceptible to the dangers posed by those substances. How is this understanding that children suffer higher risks from the dangers posed by toxic and harmful substances taken into account in our environmental and public health standards? Do we gather and consider data that specifically evaluates how those substances affect children? If that data is lacking, do we apply extra caution when we determine the amount of toxics that can be released into the air and water, the level of harmful contaminants that may be present in our drinking water, or the amount of pesticides that may be present in our food? In most cases, the answer to all of these questions is ``no.'' In fact, most of these standards are designed to protect adults rather than children. In most cases, we do not even have the data that would allow us to measure how those substances specifically affect children. And, in the face of that uncertainty, we generally assume that what we don't know about the dangers toxic and harmful substances pose to our children won't hurt them. We generally don't apply extra caution to take account of that uncertainty. CEPA would change the answers to those questions from ``no'' to ``yes.'' It would childproof our environmental laws. CEPA is based on the premise that what we don't know about the dangers toxic and harmful substances pose to our children may very well hurt them. CEPA would require the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to set environmental and public health standards to protect children. It would require EPA to explicitly consider the dangers that toxic and harmful substances pose to children when setting those standards. Finally, if EPA discovers that it does not have specific data that would allow it to measure those dangers, EPA would be required to apply an additional safety factor, an additional measure of caution, to account for that lack of information. The Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996 included my amendment to require EPA to set drinking water standards at safe levels for children. All of our environmental laws should reflect the special needs of children. CEPA would ensure that children's health risks are properly taken into account. This process would, I acknowledge, take some time. So, while EPA is in the process of updating the standards, CEPA would provide parents and teachers with a number of tools to immediately protect their children from toxic and harmful substances. First, CEPA would require EPA to provide all schools and day care centers that receive federal funding a copy of EPA's guide to help schools adopt a least toxic pest management policy. CEPA would also prohibit the use of dangerous pesticides--those containing known or probably carcinogens, reproductive toxins, acute nerve toxins and endocrine disrupters--in those areas. Under CEPA, parents would also receive advance notification before pesticides are applied on school or day care center grounds. Second, CEPA would expand the federal Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) to require the reporting of toxic chemical releases that may pose special risks to children. In particular, CEPA provides that releases of small amounts of lead, mercury, dioxin, cadmium and chromium be reported under TRI. These chemicals are either highly toxic, persist in the environment or can accumulate in the human body over many years-- all features that render them particularly dangerous to children. Lead, for example, will seriously affect a child's development, but is still released into the environment through lead smelting and waste incineration. CEPA would then require EPA to identify other toxic chemicals that may present special risks to children, and to provide that releases of those chemicals be reported under TRI. Third, CEPA would direct EPA to create a list of recommended safer- for-children products that minimize potential risks to children. Finally, CEPA would require EPA to create a family right-to-know information kit that would include practical suggestions to help parents reduce their children's exposure to toxic and harmful substances in the environment. My CEPA bill is based on the premise that what we don't know about the dangers that toxic and harmful substances pose to our children may very well hurt them. It would require EPA to apply caution in the face of that uncertainty. And, ultimately, it would childproof our environmental laws to ensure that those laws protect the most vulnerable among us--our children. I encourage my colleagues to support this bill.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Treatment on Demand Assistance Act to help ensure that substance abuse treatment is available to all substance abusers who seek it. According to the Department of Health and Human Services, each year drug and alcohol related abuse kills more than 120,000 Americans. In 1999, an estimated 14.8 million Americans were illicit drug users, with nearly 5 million of them addicted to drugs. Drugs and alcohol abuse costs taxpayers nearly $276 billion annually in preventable health care costs, extra law enforcement, auto crashes, crime and lost productivity. Additionally, the detrimental effect of substance abuse manifests itself in numerous ways. For instance, substance abuse is often the root behind family violence and other criminal activity. Even more devastating is that according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, drug injections are one of the most common modes of transmission of the AIDS virus. In an effort to combat this problem, before stepping down as America's Drug Czar, General Barry McCaffrey outlined in his final report that the prescription for solving America's drug problem was: ``prevention coupled with treatment accompanied by research.'' Despite the recognition that substance abuse treatment should be on the Nation's agenda, there is still a large gap between those in need of drug treatment and the availability of treatment programs. Thus, when substance abusers finally do seek treatment, they are often turned away because of long waiting lists. The numbers are shocking. While some substance abusers are not seeking treatment, many are, and are being turned away. In California, for example, 60 percent of all facilities that maintain a waiting list have an average of 23 people on their list on any given day. Nationwide, there are over 5 million substance abusers, yet less than half are receiving treatment for their drug problems, leaving over 2.8 million people in need of treatment. This is unacceptable. In order to address this problem, I strongly believe that along with increased funding for law enforcement, especially those proven programs run in jails and prisons, it is also necessary to provide additional funding for treatment programs. Indeed, I believe that enforcement and treatment are critical elements of an effective comprehensive drug control policy. To meet that goal, however, will require additional investment. Through the Substance Abuse Mental Health Services Administration, SAMHSA, the Federal Government currently provides over $2 billion to states and local entities for drug treatment programs, and total Federal spending in this area is just over $3 billion. Yet, this is not enough to get people the help they need when they need it. For this reason, I am introducing the Treatment on Demand Assistance Act. Congressman Cal Dooley will introduce a companion measure in the House. My bill would double the Federal government's funding for drug treatment over five years, to $6 billion in fiscal year 2006. Current treatment on demand programs focus on the specific drug abuse needs of the local community. For instance, in San Francisco and California's Central Valley, methamphetamine abuse is especially problematic and continues to be on the rise. In other cities, cocaine abuse or marijuana is the drug of choice. Treatment programs should be targeted to address these local epidemics. That is why the additional funding in this bill is provided through SAMHSA's Center for Substance Abuse Treatment and gives the Center the flexibility to target funds where they are needed most. Of the $3 billion in additional funding set aside, 50 percent is provided in the form of formula grants to States, and 50 percent is reserved for direct grants to treatment centers. The Treatment on Demand Assistance Act would also reward states that have instituted a policy of providing substance abuse treatment to non- violent drug offenders as an alternative to prison, as California recently did with the enactment of Proposition 36. The bill authorizes $250 million per year for five years to provide matching grants to states. These funds could be used to help pay for treatment as well as to provide other elements of a comprehensive anti-drug abuse program for non-violent offenders, including drug testing, drug courts and probation services. In order to ensure that the funding is being effectively distributed, the bill would require the General Accounting Office to monitor the program during the 2nd and 4th year of the grant programs. Already, there is a groundswell of interest in this bill, with over 100 organizations from both the treatment and law enforcement community actively supporting it. If groups as diverse as the California Sheriff's Association, the California Public Defenders Association and the National Association of Social Workers can come together, then surely we can find the funding necessary to invest in substance abuse treatment. Recent studies indicate that for every additional dollar invested in substance abuse treatment taxpayers would save $7.46 in societal costs. Clearly, such an investment is worthwhile, and I urge my colleagues to support treatment on demand. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and the list of endorsers be printed in the Record.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Treatment on Demand Assistance Act to help ensure that substance abuse treatment is available to all substance abusers who seek it. According to the Department of Health and Human Services, each year drug and alcohol related abuse kills more than 120,000 Americans. In 1999, an estimated 14.8 million Americans were illicit drug users, with nearly 5 million of them addicted to drugs. Drugs and alcohol abuse costs taxpayers nearly $276 billion annually in preventable health care costs, extra law enforcement, auto crashes, crime and lost productivity. Additionally, the detrimental effect of substance abuse manifests itself in numerous ways. For instance, substance abuse is often the root behind family violence and other criminal activity. Even more devastating is that according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, drug injections are one of the most common modes of transmission of the AIDS virus. In an effort to combat this problem, before stepping down as America's Drug Czar, General Barry McCaffrey outlined in his final report that the prescription for solving America's drug problem was: ``prevention coupled with treatment accompanied by research.'' Despite the recognition that substance abuse treatment should be on the Nation's agenda, there is still a large gap between those in need of drug treatment and the availability of treatment programs. Thus, when substance abusers finally do seek treatment, they are often turned away because of long waiting lists. The numbers are shocking. While some substance abusers are not seeking treatment, many are, and are being turned away. In California, for example, 60 percent of all facilities that maintain a waiting list have an average of 23 people on their list on any given day. Nationwide, there are over 5 million substance abusers, yet less than half are receiving treatment for their drug problems, leaving over 2.8 million people in need of treatment. This is unacceptable. In order to address this problem, I strongly believe that along with increased funding for law enforcement, especially those proven programs run in jails and prisons, it is also necessary to provide additional funding for treatment programs. Indeed, I believe that enforcement and treatment are critical elements of an effective comprehensive drug control policy. To meet that goal, however, will require additional investment. Through the Substance Abuse Mental Health Services Administration, SAMHSA, the Federal Government currently provides over $2 billion to states and local entities for drug treatment programs, and total Federal spending in this area is just over $3 billion. Yet, this is not enough to get people the help they need when they need it. For this reason, I am introducing the Treatment on Demand Assistance Act. Congressman Cal Dooley will introduce a companion measure in the House. My bill would double the Federal government's funding for drug treatment over five years, to $6 billion in fiscal year 2006. Current treatment on demand programs focus on the specific drug abuse needs of the local community. For instance, in San Francisco and California's Central Valley, methamphetamine abuse is especially problematic and continues to be on the rise. In other cities, cocaine abuse or marijuana is the drug of choice. Treatment programs should be targeted to address these local epidemics. That is why the additional funding in this bill is provided through SAMHSA's Center for Substance Abuse Treatment and gives the Center the flexibility to target funds where they are needed most. Of the $3 billion in additional funding set aside, 50 percent is provided in the form of formula grants to States, and 50 percent is reserved for direct grants to treatment centers. The Treatment on Demand Assistance Act would also reward states that have instituted a policy of providing substance abuse treatment to non- violent drug offenders as an alternative to prison, as California recently did with the enactment of Proposition 36. The bill authorizes $250 million per year for five years to provide matching grants to states. These funds could be used to help pay for treatment as well as to provide other elements of a comprehensive anti-drug abuse program for non-violent offenders, including drug testing, drug courts and probation services. In order to ensure that the funding is being effectively distributed, the bill would require the General Accounting Office to monitor the program during the 2nd and 4th year of the grant programs. Already, there is a groundswell of interest in this bill, with over 100 organizations from both the treatment and law enforcement community actively supporting it. If groups as diverse as the California Sheriff's Association, the California Public Defenders Association and the National Association of Social Workers can come together, then surely we can find the funding necessary to invest in substance abuse treatment. Recent studies indicate that for every additional dollar invested in substance abuse treatment taxpayers would save $7.46 in societal costs. Clearly, such an investment is worthwhile, and I urge my colleagues to support treatment on demand. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and the list of endorsers be printed in the Record.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5 minutes in favor of the amendment.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am very grateful to Senators Harkin and Hagel for proposing this amendment. It is very important. It is a promise long overdue. If we look at what has happened since we created this program, which essentially is a mandate to the schools to ensure that they take care of the disabled children in their school districts, we have fallen far short of our commitment to those children and to those schools. Every one of us knows this, regardless of whether we are from Illinois or California, east coast, west coast, North, South. The fact is, if you look at the chart behind me, what you see is that in 1996, for example, we voted $2.3 billion to help fund this program for our disabled children when in fact our commitment really was for $12.7 billion. It goes right through: In 2001, $6.3 billion. Remember, we added quite a lot, but it still is far short of the $17 billion we promised. This amendment is about fulfilling a commitment and a promise to our disabled children and also to the school districts all across this country that are doing so well at taking care of the children. As a matter of fact, if you look at the results of this IDEA program, these children are doing so much better. Fewer of them are dropping out. They are living up to their potential. This is an important and a good program. I will show this other chart that illustrates in another way the unfulfilled promise that has occurred. This is mandatory spending for our school districts. Yet that whole inner part of our graph shows how we have had an unfulfilled promise. But we will gradually begin to fulfill this promise with this IDEA authorization that this amendment would bring us, until we get to the point in several years where the need and the Federal money, 40 percent of the program, actually meet and we are meeting our commitment. For too many years we made too many empty promises. I know Senator Kennedy believes strongly in this regard. I was pleased he asked if I would say a few words. By committing to this level of funding, we are not only keeping a promise, which is the moral and right thing to do, but we are helping the children who most need our help. Again, I hope we have a very good vote in favor of the amendment. It is extremely important that we keep our promise to these children. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, it is with both pride and sadness that I ask the Senate to pause briefly so that I may share a little of the remarkable life of Betty Times, a long-serving Marin County civil servant, political activist and human rights advocate, who died last Thursday after an 8-year battle with cancer. Betty Times was born 62 years ago in Louisiana, and moved at age 5 to Marin City where her father worked at the Marinship shipyard in Sausalito. Mrs. Times lived in and enriched the community of Marin City and the County of Marin for 56 years. She leaves a lasting legacy of community service that includes 14 years as head of Marin County's Citizens Service Office, 18 years on the Sausalito School Board, one term on the Marin General Hospital district board, and countless years of leadership in Marin City, as a mother of five, a mentor, chairman of the board of the Community Development Corporation and as executive director of the Marin City Project. I first got to know Betty more than 20 years ago when I served as a Marin County supervisor, and we were both founding members of the local chapter of the National Women's Political Caucus. She also served as vice president of the national NWPC. Betty somehow also found the time to serve as an active member of the Democratic Party, and was a longtime member of the State and local Democratic Central Committees as well as a 1976 delegate to the Democratic National Convention. In 1991, she was elected to the Marin Women's Hall of Fame. Just this February and as her health was failing, Betty was honored for her years of service by the Marin County Grass Roots Leadership Network. She is also the recipient of the Martin Luther King Humanitarian Award from the Marin County Human Rights Commission. I think Betty's daughter, Ida, put it best when she said: ``My mother was the strongest person I know. She instilled very strong values in all of us, even her grandchildren. She was my best friend, and we were all incredibly proud of her. Her impact in this county rippled throughout the State.'' I am a better person for having known and worked wit Betty Times. I extend my sincere condolences to Betty's husband John, her mother Alice Coleman, and to her large and loving family.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, we have had the same 50 parts per billion standard for arsenic in our drinking water since 1942. Since then, study after study has confirmed that this level of arsenic in our drinking water is unsafe. After decades of review, a final drinking water standard was finally set to go into effect in March of this year. The new standard would have required no more than 10 parts per billion arsenic in drinking water. Unfortunately, the Bush Administration stopped this new rule from going into effect. This decision was a major blow to public health in this country. Arsenic causes lung cancer, skin cancer, and bladder cancer. We know that if you drink water at the current standard for arsenic you have a 1 in 100 chance of getting cancer. The Bush Administration has decided that we can wait, despite mountains of scientific evidence on the serious health threat posed by arsenic. By suspending the new arsenic standard, the President is preventing communities from getting started on the upgrades they need to make to their drinking water systems. This is unacceptable, and I am a co- sponsor of legislation that would restore the 10 parts per billion standard. Another consequence of the Bush Administration's decision to suspend the new rule for arsenic has received less attention but is also very important. The suspended rule contained provisions on the public's right to know what level of arsenic is in its drinking water and what the possible health effects may be. The suspended rule requires notice to consumers containing very specific information on the health risks posed by arsenic. This notice would have been required at 5 parts per billion. This is less than the maximum level permitted in drinking water, but is necessary because there is still a risk posed by arsenic at this level. I believe that the public has a right to know if there is an environmental threat in their community. If the public is fully informed about environmental threats, they may have the opportunity to avoid them. So, today I am introducing the ``Community Right to Know Arsenic Risk Act.'' My bill would restore the requirements in the suspended rule on the public's right to know. It would ensure that notice is given at the 5 parts per billion level. The level of arsenic found in drinking water in many communities poses a serious risk to public health. I am especially concerned about the most vulnerable members of the community, including children, the elderly, and AIDS or cancer patients, to name a few. I am committed to full disclosure to consumers of both the levels of arsenic in drinking water and the possible health effects. Drinking water that may meet federal standards still may pose health risks that should be known to the consumer. This is certainly the case with arsenic. The consumer should have the right to choose alternative water sources or to seek tighter standards. This is a minimum requirement. I encourage my colleagues to co-sponsor this legislation and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, this year marks the ninth anniversary of ``Stamp Out Hunger,'' the largest one-day food drive in the United States. I strongly commend and congratulate the National Association of Letter Carriers, NALC, for sponsoring this annual event, and marvel at its rapid expansion, beginning in only ten cities in 1992, it now spans over 10,000 cities and towns across our nation. More than 1,500 NALC branches, including the California State Association of Letter Carriers in my home State, will participate in this year's ``Stamp Out Hunger.'' On May 12, the second Saturday in May, residents across the country will be asked to place boxes and bags of food next to their mailboxes, where postal workers will pick them up, sort them, and deliver them to community food banks, shelters and pantries. The success of this program can be seen in the staggering volume of donations: more than 392 million pounds of food have been collected in the program's history. However, what impresses me most is the strong commitment of our nation's postal workers and citizens to end hunger. The only way we will put an end to poverty is to follow their example and take action, become involved, make a concerted effort. I urge all Americans to participate in ``Stamp Out Hunger'' on May 12 to put an end to the poverty that is plaguing far too many children, men and women in our communities and across our nation.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, we have had the same 50 parts per billion standard for arsenic in our drinking water since 1942. Since then, study after study has confirmed that this level of arsenic in our drinking water is unsafe. After decades of review, a final drinking water standard was finally set to go into effect in March of this year. The new standard would have required no more than 10 parts per billion arsenic in drinking water. Unfortunately, the Bush Administration stopped this new rule from going into effect. This decision was a major blow to public health in this country. Arsenic causes lung cancer, skin cancer, and bladder cancer. We know that if you drink water at the current standard for arsenic you have a 1 in 100 chance of getting cancer. The Bush Administration has decided that we can wait, despite mountains of scientific evidence on the serious health threat posed by arsenic. By suspending the new arsenic standard, the President is preventing communities from getting started on the upgrades they need to make to their drinking water systems. This is unacceptable, and I am a co- sponsor of legislation that would restore the 10 parts per billion standard. Another consequence of the Bush Administration's decision to suspend the new rule for arsenic has received less attention but is also very important. The suspended rule contained provisions on the public's right to know what level of arsenic is in its drinking water and what the possible health effects may be. The suspended rule requires notice to consumers containing very specific information on the health risks posed by arsenic. This notice would have been required at 5 parts per billion. This is less than the maximum level permitted in drinking water, but is necessary because there is still a risk posed by arsenic at this level. I believe that the public has a right to know if there is an environmental threat in their community. If the public is fully informed about environmental threats, they may have the opportunity to avoid them. So, today I am introducing the ``Community Right to Know Arsenic Risk Act.'' My bill would restore the requirements in the suspended rule on the public's right to know. It would ensure that notice is given at the 5 parts per billion level. The level of arsenic found in drinking water in many communities poses a serious risk to public health. I am especially concerned about the most vulnerable members of the community, including children, the elderly, and AIDS or cancer patients, to name a few. I am committed to full disclosure to consumers of both the levels of arsenic in drinking water and the possible health effects. Drinking water that may meet federal standards still may pose health risks that should be known to the consumer. This is certainly the case with arsenic. The consumer should have the right to choose alternative water sources or to seek tighter standards. This is a minimum requirement. I encourage my colleagues to co-sponsor this legislation and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am here to say that this bill, S. 350, the Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act, is a tremendously important issue for this country and for my constituents. I truly believe if we look around the country, it is an extremely important issue to everyone. Why? Because we have so many acres of land around the country that have been contaminated with low-level hazardous waste. They do not fit the definition of a Superfund site, but they are expensive to clean up, and local communities really do need our help. I want to show you an example of a successful brownfields restoration. This photograph is of a site in Emeryville, CA, that hosted a steel manufacturing plant for over 100 years. In the early 1990s, it was shut down, the buildings were demolished, and the area was left empty and desolate. You can see from the photograph what a horrible eyesore it was to the community. And, by the way, this site is along a major freeway, so everyone saw it. It gave the impression of a community that was simply going downhill. The next picture I will show you is what happened when the State got together with the IKEA company and worked together to clean up the site. In 1997, the State came to this agreement with the original owners of the site and with IKEA to restore and redevelop the area. Now the site holds 280,000 square feet of commercial retail space. The project has created 300 new, permanent jobs for the community. Now the site generates roughly $70 million in annual sales. There are not too many things in this Chamber that we can do that has such clear-cut benefit. Clean up the environment and you make an area much nicer to look at. And then you can develop it and bring jobs to the site. So if anyone questions the need for this brownfields legislation, I would welcome them to, again, look at these before-and-after pictures. Here it is after; here it is before. It is a pretty clear picture. I am so proud of the bipartisan cooperation that occurred in getting the bill through the Environment and Public Works Committee. The broad support, from a variety of diverse interests, as well as the cosponsorship of over 60 Senators, is a good indication that the time has come to pass this brownfields legislation. I understand that even our colleagues who have problems with the bill are now supporting it. I think this is a tribute to them for being open minded about it, and a tribute to our chairman, Chairman Smith, and our ranking member, Harry Reid, for working with our colleagues. I want to talk a little bit about the brownfields in my home State of California, the largest State in the Union, with 34 million people. The economy of my State would be considered the sixth largest economy in the world. So it seems to me that whenever there are problems in the country, of course, we have more of those problems in my State. And when good things are happening, we have more of the good things. This is one of the problems. So let's talk about it. There are estimated to be hundreds, if not thousands, of brownfield sites in California. We have heard nationwide estimates of 400,000 to 600,000 brownfield sites. We have thousands of sites in California because some industries have left the State with a dangerous legacy of contamination. This bill will serve as a catalyst for cleanup because it provides funding for grants and revolving loan funds to assist our States, our local communities, and our tribal governments to do the assessments first. In other words, what is the problem? What is going on? What is it going to cost to clean it up? And how is the best way to clean it up? This bill fills a gap. As I said before, Superfund covers our Nation's most hazardous sites. We really did not have a way to approach the less hazardous sites. I want to talk about how happy I am that this bill includes my proposal to protect children. Under S. 350, funding will be prioritized for brownfields that disproportionately impact the health of children, pregnant women, or other vulnerable populations, such as the elderly. This is very important. Why do I say that? Because children are not small adults. I have said this often. I am a small adult. But children are not small adults. They are more sensitive than adults to the health threats posed by hazardous waste, even the kinds we call low level. Why? Because their bodies are changing, and they are developing. Healthy adults can tolerate higher levels of pollutants than children. In recognition of this, the bill ensures that children, and others who are particularly vulnerable, will be given special priority for funding under this bill. So we are going to look at these sites. If it is a site where children play, where children go, where the elderly go, where people who are vulnerable go, those sites will be priority sites. The bill also gives priority to cleanups in low-income and minority communities because, unfortunately, we have seen a lot of the environmental injustice in this country where brownfield sites are disproportionately located in low-income and minority communities, certainly in places such as Oakland, Los Angeles, and Sacramento. So we have a situation where the brownfields are most prevalent in communities that are least able to deal with them. And the more brownfield sites that are in a community, the lower the chance that the community can improve its economic plight. It is a horrible cycle of poverty. Let's take this site shown in the photograph. This site was in a very low-income community, and no one had the resources. And a company such as IKEA, who eventually came to this site, did not want to go to this site because there was no one to go to the store. You would have a situation where the site could sit vacant for years and years and years. It contributes to the cycle. You can never get out of the cycle. So by saying this kind of a situation in a low-income community would be a priority, we will give an economic stimulus to those communities. I am very pleased about that. The last issue that I believe very strongly about is the issue of sites that were contaminated because there was illegal manufacturing of a controlled substance there. This may sound very odd. So let me explain what I mean. In California, we have a terrible problem from the production of methamphetamine. It turns out that this terribly dangerous drug is not only illegal, not only does it destroy people--destroy people--but the byproduct of methamphetamine production is a toxic stew of lye, hydriodic acid, and red phosphorus. These elements threaten the groundwater and agricultural lands of the Central Valley and elsewhere in California where these secret methamphetamine labs are sited. I show you a picture of one abandoned lab where you can see these containers with all the chemicals that were left on the site. This is another picture of an abandoned meth site. We can see what it looks like, what a disaster it is when these criminals leave and then suddenly the owners of the land who had no idea this was happening are left with this horrible contamination. We were able to include relief for these farmers. I will talk about that in a minute. I will take a moment to talk more about these methamphetamine labs. In California alone, there were 277 secret drug labs that were raided in 1990. In 1998, there were over 1,000 of these clandestine drug labs. The State is doing its best to address the problem as well as the larger brownfields problem. They are trying to do it, but it is very hard to do it alone. We have to have everyone helping. This bill will provide invaluable assistance for the cleanup of meth sites and other brownfields, which is another reason I am such a strong supporter of the legislation. This bill includes liability relief for innocent parties. These innocent parties are people who are interested in cleaning up the brownfield site, but they are afraid to get involved because they may become liable for somebody else's mess. Our bill makes it clear that innocent parties will not be held liable under Superfund for the work they do on a brownfield site. This provision alone should help reduce the fear of developers and real estate interests, and it should lead to more cleanups. This provision is certainly a strong reason that a variety of business and real estate interests are strong supporters of the bill. They want to come in; they want to clean up the sites; but they don't want to now become held liable for past problems and then be hauled into court on a Superfund case. However, I do believe very strongly that the polluter must pay. Our bill does not protect people who are responsible for cleanup under Superfund or any other statute. If you make a mess, if you despoil the environment, you still will be held responsible for cleaning it up. We maintain ``the polluter pays'' principle that underpins many of our hazardous waste statutes. The committee considered and rejected efforts to waive the application of other statutes, such as RCRA and TSCA, to these brownfield sites. It was too complicated to try to amend other statutes, and I appreciate the fact that our foursome stuck together during these amendments because it would have opened up a can of worms. What we did was we kept this narrow. We kept it on the issue of brownfields. We kept out extraneous issues. Again, I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their cooperation on that. Our bill encourages States to take the lead on brownfield sites. It does set some limitations on EPA's enforcement authority under Superfund for sites covered by this bill. We believe this is important in gaining strong support. I am comfortable with this feature because there are a number of safeguards that ensure that a secure Federal safety net remains. These safeguards are an essential part of the compromise that is the heart of the bill. They ensure that EPA can apply its full Superfund enforcement authority under a variety of circumstances. Most important to me--and it was a tough debate that we had--was the guarantee that EPA could intervene if a site threatens to cause immediate and substantial endangerment to the public's health or welfare or to the environment. I believe this language guarantees that if a State's oversight of a cleanup fails to protect our citizens or our environment, the Federal Government can intervene. We are clear that we want the State to be responsible, but if there is a problem which will result in an immediate threat to people's health, the EPA can enter. It was a careful balance that went into crafting that provision as well as the rest of the bill. Together I believe we have produced a sensible and balanced bill that will help encourage the recycling of brownfield sites that now sit unused around the Nation. In closing, one more time I will show our success story that happened in Emeryville. First, let's show the before picture again. This is what we are talking about, sites that look like this, sites that are harmful. People don't want to go on them. People are afraid of them. There is no economic development in the middle of our urban areas. Then when we work together, we can bring business interests to the site and we start to see people use the site again. The site will bring in revenues. I thank my colleagues for all their hard work, and I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER. Yes, The managers' amendment states that consultation with the State shall not limit the ability of the Administrator in making a determination, as the result of new information, that contamination or conditions at a facility present a threat requiring further remediation to protect public health or welfare or the environment. Consultation with the State is important and is addressed in this section and other portions of the bill. It is not intended, however, to be an open-ended process. Consultation should not delay or prohibit the Administrator's ability to determine that a site presents a threat that requires further remediation.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, if I could get the attention of the Senator from Rhode Island for a moment, I thank the Senator so much for his leadership on this issue. It has meant so much to us to have it and that of Senator Smith. Senator Reid and I are most grateful. I think we have a team that is very good for the environment. When we are together, it is a real winner because we can reach out to colleagues on both sides of the aisle from the entire spectrum. So I just want to say thank you. I say to the Senator, as much as I miss your father, whom I adored, I must say that it is wonderful to have you here and following in his ``green'' footsteps.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I have been amazed at the first 100 days of the Bush administration in relation to the environment issue. When I say the environment, I don't just throw that word out. I am talking about air, I am talking about water, I am talking about drinking water, I am talking about parks, and I am talking about cleaning up Superfund sites and brownfield sites. The fact is, we have a situation on our hands that is going to be very dangerous for our people. Why do I say that? I say that for a couple of reasons. First of all, we see rollbacks on very important issues. We have all heard about the President backing off the pledge he made in the campaign to deal with CO2 emissions which cause major problems in air quality. We know he has backed off that. We saw him evaluate a number of rules that were put in place under the Clinton administration. The one that I cannot get over--there are a number; I don't have time to get into them--is the one dealing with arsenic. We know a few things about arsenic. It is unsafe at any level. We know for a fact that at the current level of arsenic that is allowed in our drinking water, if you drink out of that water supply, 1 out of 100 people will get cancer--not may get cancer, not might get cancer, but will get cancer. We know this to be the case. Yet this administration, in violation of the law, in my opinion--that will be tested in the courts--reversed the Clinton administration rule on arsenic to reduce the parts per billion that would be allowable, where the Clinton administration had gone from 50 parts per billion to 10 and he put us back at 50 parts per billion. Let me list some of the countries that have a standard of 50 parts per billion. I will give you an idea of the countries that allow 50 parts per billion of arsenic: Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bolivia, China, Egypt, India, and Indonesia. That is an example. Let me list some of the countries that have the 10 parts per billion: European Union, Japan, and Jordan. I have to say that we owe our people safe drinking water. If we owe them nothing else, we can argue a lot of things, but the Federal Government needs to make sure that our people are safe. What we have is a rollback on a number of fronts. I am just talking about the arsenic one today. There are others. I will save them for another day. But in addition to this, in order to pay for his tax cut to the wealthiest people who do not need it, those over $300,000 and $400,000 a year, those over $1 million, $2 million, or $1 billion a year, in order to pay for that tax cut, some of those people are going to get back a million dollars a year. This President has cut back environmental enforcement. Let's take a look at the key cuts that he has put in his budget. The Environmental Protection Agency, a $500 million cut; the Interior Department, a $400 million cut. The clean energy and nuclear contamination cleanup--you have Dick Cheney out there saying we need more nuclear power. He has not even figured out a way to clean up the nuclear waste we have. They have cut $700 million, and they want more nuclear power, which is dangerous. There is a conservation program in the Agriculture Department. They cut that $300 million. So we see a total of $1.9 billion in cuts to pay for a tax cut that favors the top 1 percent, leaving out 99 percent of the people. What does that really mean? What does it mean when you cut environmental enforcement? Let me get into that. It is very serious. What happens is, we are going to see fewer inspectors out in the field and fewer technical exports on the ground. We are going to see that the Federal Government will no longer be able to be a watchdog for some of the most serious threats to public health and the environment. I want to give examples because people have seen the movie ``Erin Brockovich.'' We all saw what happened to people in a small town in California when that particular water system had an excess of chromium 6, which is, by the way, very dangerous. It is very lethal. By the way, there is no Federal standard for chromium 6 in water. I have a bill that would place into law a Federal standard, but we hear silence from the Bush administration on that. Instead of looking at the new threats, they are taking the old threats and making them more threatening, such as with arsenic, by rolling back the laws. When the American people know about this, I think they are going to be very upset. You should not have to be able to afford bottled water in this country to be safe. You should not have to worry that your child is going to get cancer as a result of drinking from the water tap. Oh, they say, it costs money to clean it up. As my kids would say when they were young: Dah. Yes, this is so. It costs money to clean up an environmental problem. Do we have it? Yes, we do. Why not cap the tax refund people earning over $1 million will get? Every year they earn $1 million. Cap their tax refund. Take the money and clean up the water. Get the arsenic out. Help the local people. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 4 additional minutes.

Mrs. BOXER. But, no, let's look at these priorities. The President wants to bring an education bill to the floor. My colleague from Massachusetts is our real leader in the Senate, and he is going to talk about it. There are some good ideas that have been carved out between the parties. There is not enough money behind it. It is a false promise. A kid takes a test and fails the test. What are you going to do for the kid? You can test him every 6 months. Why not test him every 2 months? What good is it if there is no one available to help that child learn? So when the President says, ``Leave no child behind,'' where is the beef? When you look at the environmental budget--and you have to remember the President stood in front of some beautiful lakes and streams and rivers and said he was an environmentalist--how can we have prosperity when our environment is dirty? Yet we look at the budget, which includes the priorities of this President, and you see nothing but destruction. I have seen it happen in California in El Segundo. We had a refinery that was releasing air pollution that aggravated very badly those suffering from asthma. People were very sick. There was a lawsuit that was brought. EPA supported it. Why? They had enforcement capability. Chevron's own records show that it simply did not use the pollution control technology that was required. There was not any new innovative technology. It was already approved. They agreed to a huge settlement, one of the biggest in history. Because of the Environmental Protection Agency, the people got help. Chevron is going to help build and operate a health clinic to take care of those people who experience health problems. EPA has the legal authority needed to ensure that serious violations are stopped and that polluters are held accountable--which can help deter a company from disregarding environmental protections in the future. EPA's legal authority and resources are most often needed in cases like this one, where the issues are very serious and the company has substantial resources. It was not until the Federal Government filed suit against Chevron that the company agreed to comply with the law. In another example, the United States, including EPA, Department of Interior, and Department of Commerce, as well as several California state agencies, reached settlement worth an estimated $1 billion with Aventis to clean-up the Iron Mountain Mine located near Redding, CA, in October of 2000. The State of California requested help from the Federal Government in this enormously complex case explaining that they had ``exhausted all practicable enforcement action against the potential defendants.'' Prior to the settlement, this mine discharged an average of one ton of toxic metals per day into the Upper Sacramento River, a critical salmon spawning habitat and a central part of California's water system. As recently as 5 years ago, the site dumped the equivalent of 150 tanker cars full of toxic metals into the Sacramento River during winter storms. At one point, workers had left a shovel at the site in a green liquid flowing from the mine and it was half eaten away over night. I have a photograph of a disposal area on the site that gives you a feel for just one part of the damage at this very large and complex site. This site dumped approximately one quarter of the total copper and zinc discharged into our nation's water from industrial and municipal sources throughout the United States. This case is another good example of the kind of cases a strong EPA enforcement program is needed for--sites that are large, that can overwhelm State programs, even in a State with a well developed and active environmental program like California, and sites with very large corporate interests involved. When you take a close look at EPA's past enforcement efforts you see who benefits from cuts in enforcement. Serious polluters can take big hits to their pocketbooks when they are caught. A cut in enforcement is worth a great deal to these violators, but enforcement cuts come at the expense of public health and safety as well as the environment. The President's proposed budget cuts the heart out of agricultural conservation programs, like the Wetland Reserve Program which is eliminated--cut from $162 million in fiscal year 2001 to $0 in fiscal year 2002. This program was first authorized in 1990, during the first Bush administration, to provide long term protection for wetlands. The President has collected an incredible assortment of cuts in environmental protection--all sources for the tax cut that fails to take into account the priorities of the American people, like conservation and environmental protection. Before deciding on what the ``right size'' of the tax cut should be, the President should consider the impacts of these cuts. California provides some valuable examples of the conservation benefits we will lose if the President's budget cuts are implemented. The Wetland Reserve Program in California has helped restore a portion of the 4.5 million acres of wetlands lost to agricultural conversion and development in our State. In addition to providing habitat for migratory birds, other wetlands restoration benefits include improvement of water quality, flood control, sediment abatement and recharge of groundwater. California is the primary path of the ``Pacific Flyway''--approximately 20 percent of all waterfowl pass through California's Central Valley. At the present time, the federal Wetland's Reserve Program, zeroed out in the President's budget, is the largest wetland protection program in California. More than 60,000 acres to date have been protected in this program in California. There are more than 100 applicants on a waiting list to protect and restore their agricultural lands. One of the strongest parts of the program are the partnerships with not-for-profit organizations like California Waterfowl and the Nature Conservancy, as well as the private landowners themselves. I have a photograph of one of the successful restorations accomplished by a conservation easement under the Wetland Reserve Program. The site is in Colusa County, CA and was enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program in 1992. It is approximately 195 acres of seasonal wetlands that provides both winter and brood habitat for migrating and nesting waterfowl, shorebirds, migratory songbirds, and other wildlife. This easement is part of a 1,000-acre complex of wetlands and upland nesting habitat adjacent to the Sacramento River and lies in the middle of the largest migratory waterfowl corridor in North America. It is owned by the Audubon Society and acts as a sanctuary for wildlife. Given the value and community support for agriculture conservation programs, I simply cannot see how the President can justify eliminating these kinds of programs to increase his tax cut. Mr. President, let me sum up. We have a tax cut that was pledged as a campaign promise 2 years ago because Steve Forbes was in a debate with George Bush and said: I am for this $1.4 trillion tax cut. Times have changed. The economy has turned around since George Bush has become President. We have problems. People are not optimistic about the future of this country. What does that mean? It means that a sensible person--this is my view--would sit back and say: I want to do this, and it is on my agenda, but maybe I can't do it all at once. Maybe I will cut it in half. Maybe I am going to invest in the people, invest in children, so that we have an afterschool program for every child, so that we have safe drinking water for every child, so that we know people are not going to get sick from air pollution. We talk about our kids. Every one of us cares about kids. That is one of the reasons we are Senators. Do you know the leading cause of admissions in hospitals for children is asthma? They miss school. So you have to connect the dots. If you take out massive sums of money that you are going to transfer to the top 1 percent of income earners, forgetting 99 percent--everyone else--really, you have given 43 percent of the tax cut to the people in the highest income, and then you say you do not have any money to enforce the Clean Air Act or the Clean Water Act. You roll back the laws on arsenic. You take away the money to clean up nuclear contamination, while you are calling for more nuclear plants. You bring out an education bill that is so short of money that it is an empty promise and an unfunded mandate for our States. It is an unfunded mandate because we are forcing them to test, and yet we do not have enough to help those children. Connect the dots. If you build a budget around an unrealistic, dangerous tax cut, it is going to take us back to deficits. You are not going to be able to pay down the debt. You are not going to be able to do the basics for our children. You are not going to be able to clean up the environment. And you have a problem. It is no wonder this economy is a little at sea, because this budget does not add up and it does not make sense. Mr. President. I yield the floor.