Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, before my colleague from Louisiana leaves the floor, I thank her so much for saying what the issue before us really is. We all agree that we need to make children our No. 1 priority. We all agree that there are things in our schools that need to be improved, and we need to, frankly, underscore the things that are working. We don't want to leave any child behind. That is President Bush's comment. When we get the chance to have an education bill brought here with our friends, Senator Kennedy, Senator Jeffords, and others, we want to make sure it is not just an empty promise. I think she has fleshed this out. I thank her very much. In California, we test every year. It is not a big deal. We have that reform in place. But if you test them and find they are failing and you don't have anything in place to help them after school or during school to give them the smaller class sizes, to give them a facility that feels good, looks good, and is safe for them, they are not going to improve. When this education bill comes up, I predict that the Senate will take that Bush bill and change it dramatically in terms of the resources we put behind the rhetoric. There are two R's. Usually they say there are three R's. But there is rhetoric here, then there is requirement. Those are the two R's. The rhetoric is fine. Let's get the requirements in there so that we can meet the needs of our children. There is a third R--results. That is what we want to do. How much time do I have? Is there a limit on time?

Mrs. BOXER. I would like to know when I have 1 minute remaining of my 10 minutes.

Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Chair.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, we have seen three shootings and watched three young children lose their lives in the past four weeks. Two of these were in my state of California; the latest shooting was in my colleagues' state of Indiana. These shootings have been terrifying for all of us, children, parents, community members, and the nation as a whole. We must stop these acts of violence, now. We cannot wait for another young life to slip through our hands. These incidents have reminded us that no place is safe from gun violence. Principals think about the safety of their schools every day; parents worry about the safety of their children's classrooms every day; and children walk to school unsure of their own safety every day. This is sad, but this is the reality. Today I am proposing to change this reality. My bill reaffirms our commitment to school safety by creating a permanent School Safety Fund. This Fund will allow the Attorney General to provide grants to school districts so that they can create their own comprehensive school safety strategies, incorporating both violence prevention and school safety activities. What might be included in these safety strategies? Schools could establish hotlines and tiplines, so that students could anonymously report potentially dangerous situations. They could hire more community police officers and purchase security equipment. I would argue that all schools could use more counselors, psychologists, and school social workers, these funds will help hire them. Schools could use the funds to train teachers and administrators to identify the early warning signs of troubled youth. They could also use the funds to teach our students conflict resolution programs, and to set up a mentoring program for students. The bottom line is clear: each school needs to decide the extent of its problem, and decide what solution would be best for its community. My bill gives school districts the leeway they need to deal with school safety, providing federal funds to attack school violence where it happens: in the schools. This approach, in and of itself, is not a novel idea. Since 1999, the federal government has funded a program called ``Safe Schools Initiative.'' A collaboration between the Department of Justice, the Department of Education, and the Department of Health and Human Services, Safe Schools provides grants to school districts to do the activities I outlined above. In fact, 77 school districts have already been awarded funds. Why, then, is my bill necessary? My bill does two important things. One, it writes this program into law. Currently, the Appropriations Committee decides year-to-year whether to fund this initiative. This program is important--important enough to warrant an authorization. My amendment codifies these grants through fiscal year 2006. Second, and perhaps most important, my bill speaks to how these grants are funded. All funding would come directly from the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund. And rather than set a specific authorization level--rather than pull a number out of thin air and declare that number the ``need'', my bill would give discretion to the Attorney General to decide how many grants should be awarded, and how much money each grantee should receive. For example, if a crisis arises, the Attorney General has the flexibility to distribute grants as he sees fit. He does not have to wait for Congress to act, or watch as Congress fails to act. He can identify the need, and address it immediately. On the flip side, if school safety problems improve, as all of us hope, then the Attorney General can spend less on school safety. Again, it is up to his discretion. You know as well as I do that school safety is a serious problem. We cannot simply stand by the wayside and allow violence to continue disrupting the lives of students and communities. My bill recognizes the widespread reach of these violent outbreaks, and tells communities that the federal government will not fail them. Communities are eager to protect their schoolchildren, and this bill will give them an opportunity to do so.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, last month there were two school shootings in my state. A mere seventeen days and six miles away from each other, they claimed the lives of two students and wounded eighteen others. These shootings were terrible tragedies for their communities, and a painful reminder of the fragile security of our nation's schools. To combat these tragic acts of violence, many schools employ safety strategies that protect the millions of children, teenagers and adults that attend them every single day. The federal government plays a role in many of these programs. My amendment speaks to one of them: COPS In Schools. Although we passed the COPS program in 1994, it was not until 1998 that the Department of Justice created a specific COPS In Schools program. Since then, nearly 3,800 police officers have been placed in 1,800 school districts across the nation. California alone has put 270 new police officers in schools across the state. Unfortunately, not all schools are so lucky. At the time of last month's shooting at Santana High School in Santee, California, the school happened by pure luck to have two law enforcement officials near campus. The shooting spree at Santana High School lasted a mere six minutes. In this time, more than 30 rounds were shot, two teenagers were killed, and 13 people were wounded. It is dreadful to imagine what might have happened if the police had not responded so quickly. An even more poignant situation, which underscored the absolutely vital role police officers play in our nation's schools, was the school shooting in El Cajon, California. This time, there were no deaths. A police officer--who had been stationed at Granite Hills High School after the Santana High School shooting occurred--responded immediately after hearing gunshots and managed to stop the shooter from claiming innocent lives. Had a police officer not been on campus, we may have been counting fatalities instead of injuries. Make no mistake, the police officers put in schools by the COPS In Schools program are not there to simply patrol the hallways, nor are they there to make schools feel like prisons. Police officers in schools serve an important purpose: they work with school staff to develop anti-crime policies on campus, implement procedures to ensure a safer school environment, and reassure parents that a police officer is there to deal with those students that might cause problems. Local governments are required to provide 25 percent of the funding to hire these police officers, unless the Attorney General grants them a waiver. Under Attorney General Janet Reno, communities routinely received federal funding to hire police officers for schools without having to contribute matching funds. This was extremely generous, and I am hopeful that this policy will continue. To ensure that it does, my bill permanently waives the local matching fund requirement for placing a police officer in a school. No child, teenager or adult attending one of America's public schools should be put in danger simply because of a lack of funding. Communities should be able to put police officers in their schools, period. My bill will allow them to do just that. We know that having police officers in schools works. They help ensure the safety of our schools, our schoolchildren and our faculty every single day. I encourage my colleagues to show their commitment to our students by supporting this bill.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I have a question for either of the managers. My understanding is that we have a Senator who will not be back until 2:30. Is that affecting our voting schedule?

Mrs. BOXER. Reserving the right to object.

Mrs. BOXER

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

Mrs. BOXER. I yield to my colleague, the Senator from Nevada.

Mrs. BOXER. Thank you very much. I thank my colleague from New Jersey, Senator Corzine, and my ranking member, Senator Reid. I stand in strong support of Senator Corzine's amendment. It isn't rocket science to know a few things about our life. If we can't breathe clean air, if we can't drink safe water, and if we can't count on the Government to protect us from events that we cannot protect ourselves against, then what use are we as a Senate? If you take a look at the Republican budget that is before us, it is a sad commentary on the value that they place on a clean and healthy environment for our people. They can say whatever they want, but they are at $52.5 billion, and they are going below the current level of services. Again, this President likes arsenic in the water. I don't know. He will have to explain that to the American people. He took a move where he was going to say we are not even going to check for salmonella in the meat that goes to school lunches. Senator Durbin caught him on that and now he backed off. He has also backed off on the right to know if there is lead in a product, or in the air we breathe. I have to say that is not a family value. That is not a value of a great nation. Whether it is arsenic in our water or contaminants in our soil or air, this amendment should be supported. It doesn't do us any good to have a thousand dollars in our pocket if we are dying of cancer.

Ms. BOXER

Ms. BOXER. Mr. President, today Senator Harry Reid and I are introducing a bill for the first time ever will require the Environment Protection Agency, EPA, to set a federal standard for chromium 6 in drinking water. The recent movie, ``Erin Brockovich'' made front page news of the substance hexavalent chromium, otherwise known as chromium 6, that until last year had only received attention from the scientific community. But Hinkley, California, the town depicted in the movie, is not the only place where chromium 6 has been found in the drinking water supply. For example, last September, PG&E National Energy Group agreed to close down five unlined wastewater basins and two landfills at its power plants in Massachusetts because they were being sued for dumping waste contaminated with chromium 6 into these basins and landfills, endangering the safety of the groundwater. Over one year ago in Painesville Township, Ohio, large amounts of chromium 6 were removed from a construction site. Workers at the site were replacing 2,000 feet of pipe in the sewer main when they encountered the contaminated water, which was described as ``phosphorescent yellow-green liquid.'' Chromium 6 is a chemical that is used by a variety of industries throughout the country. When improperly disposed of, chromium 6 can contaminate ground water, which is the very same water that many communities use to supply their drinking water. We now know for a fact that chromium 6 causes a host of serious health problems, including cancer, liver damage, kidney damage, immune system suppression, respiratory illness, skin rashes, nose bleeds and neurological damage. What we do not know is the level at which chromium 6 in drinking water causes these problems. That is why I am introducing this bill today with my colleague Senator Harry Reid. Our bill will require the National Academy of Sciences to study the health effects of chromium 6 in drinking water and to make recommendations to the EPA on an appropriate maximum contaminant level goal. The EPA, based on these recommendations, will then list chromium 6 as a regulated contaminant under the Safe Drinking Water Act and set a federal standard for the levels of chromium 6 that can safely be found in drinking water. This bill will also ensure that communities are able to get information about the chromium 6 levels in their drinking water from their local water supplies by applying existing right-to-know laws and will provide funding to state and local water authorities to help defray the cost of cleaning up chromium 6. I look forward to working with my colleagues to secure passage of this vitally important health safety measure. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed the Record.

Ms. BOXER

Ms. BOXER. Mr. President, today Senator Harry Reid and I are introducing a bill for the first time ever will require the Environment Protection Agency, EPA, to set a federal standard for chromium 6 in drinking water. The recent movie, ``Erin Brockovich'' made front page news of the substance hexavalent chromium, otherwise known as chromium 6, that until last year had only received attention from the scientific community. But Hinkley, California, the town depicted in the movie, is not the only place where chromium 6 has been found in the drinking water supply. For example, last September, PG&E National Energy Group agreed to close down five unlined wastewater basins and two landfills at its power plants in Massachusetts because they were being sued for dumping waste contaminated with chromium 6 into these basins and landfills, endangering the safety of the groundwater. Over one year ago in Painesville Township, Ohio, large amounts of chromium 6 were removed from a construction site. Workers at the site were replacing 2,000 feet of pipe in the sewer main when they encountered the contaminated water, which was described as ``phosphorescent yellow-green liquid.'' Chromium 6 is a chemical that is used by a variety of industries throughout the country. When improperly disposed of, chromium 6 can contaminate ground water, which is the very same water that many communities use to supply their drinking water. We now know for a fact that chromium 6 causes a host of serious health problems, including cancer, liver damage, kidney damage, immune system suppression, respiratory illness, skin rashes, nose bleeds and neurological damage. What we do not know is the level at which chromium 6 in drinking water causes these problems. That is why I am introducing this bill today with my colleague Senator Harry Reid. Our bill will require the National Academy of Sciences to study the health effects of chromium 6 in drinking water and to make recommendations to the EPA on an appropriate maximum contaminant level goal. The EPA, based on these recommendations, will then list chromium 6 as a regulated contaminant under the Safe Drinking Water Act and set a federal standard for the levels of chromium 6 that can safely be found in drinking water. This bill will also ensure that communities are able to get information about the chromium 6 levels in their drinking water from their local water supplies by applying existing right-to-know laws and will provide funding to state and local water authorities to help defray the cost of cleaning up chromium 6. I look forward to working with my colleagues to secure passage of this vitally important health safety measure. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed the Record.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I just thank my two colleagues for bringing this information to the Senate. I came into the House of Representatives with Norman Sisisky. What a terrific person he was to work with. He had a wonderful sense of humor, was very dedicated, as my friend pointed out, to his country. He was very patriotic, and he was a real fighter for his district. I want to associate myself with the eloquent words of Senator Warner and Senator Allen.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, this year the spotlight on energy policy has increased. One issue that is key for this country is our oil supply. Americans are very dependent on gasoline, and it is imperative that we address this problem. First on the demand side of the equation, we should increase the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standard for SUVs and light trucks so that it equals the standard for cars. That would save 1 million barrels of oil per day. By becoming more energy efficient, the amount of our dependence on oil will decrease. Second, we also need to focus on the supply side of the picture. For example, we should protect the American supply by banning the exportation of crude oil from Alaska's North Slope. And, today, I am introducing, along with Senator Wyden, legislation to do just that. For 22 years, from 1973 to 1995, the export of Alaska North Slope oil was banned. We banned it to reduce our dependence on imported oil and to keep gasoline prices down. Unfortunately, at the behest of oil producers, the ban was lifted in 1995. The General Accounting Office has stated that lifting the export ban resulted in an increase in the price of crude oil by about $1 per barrel. In fact, some oil companies used their ability to export this oil to artificially increase the price of gasoline on the West Coast. With the spotlight on energy policy, President Bush and others have called for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, (ANWR). It makes no sense to destroy a beautiful, pristine sanctuary, one of the most remarkable wildlife habitats in the world, for oil that will only last six months. And this call to destroy ANWR comes even in the face of the possible export of American oil that is being drilled in areas already open to drilling. For a little under a year now, no North Slope oil has been exported. But this has been done voluntarily--and in one case mainly to ensure that a proposed merger was approved by the FTC. Although there are no exports now, the threat exists and given our current situation, this ban is necessary to preclude any chance of exporting this oil. This is oil that is on public lands, and that is transported along a federal right-of-way. Taxpayers own this product. We need to ensure that American consumers and industry will remain first. I encourage my colleagues to support the Oil Supply Improvement Act.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. In closing, which I would have done if I had the opportunity, I believe there are certain amendments that strengthen this underlying bill. This is one of those amendments. It strengthens the underlying bill. It makes it even better. It gets at a situation that is out of control. I will be supporting this amendment. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, people keep coming and getting more time. That is fine. But I think we need to reserve another matching minute because now the opponents are coming to the floor laying out their arguments. People are coming to the floor. So if Senator Burns is speaking against this amendment, I ask unanimous consent that I have 30 seconds to respond to his comments.

Mrs. BOXER. If my friend will yield for a moment, I wonder if the Senator from Kentucky will give me 5 minutes at the conclusion of Senator Durbin's time. I would appreciate it.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, we are not asking anyone to lower their rates. That is a misstatement of the amendment. The Torricelli amendment simply says current law should be followed. Current law says the lowest rate should apply. May I remind my friends, the airwaves are owned by the American people. People get a license. The airwaves should be open to the American people. In California, they give us 10 percent at the lowest rate, and 90 percent of it is at the highest rate. You cannot get your message out. This amendment is a clarification of existing law. It strengthens McCain-Feingold. If you vote against this, it is just a signal to the broadcasters to keep on ripping us off and all the money will go to TV.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Kentucky for yielding. I strongly support the amendment being offered today by Senators Torricelli, Corzine, Durbin, and Dorgan. We learn best when involved in the middle of a situation. Anyone who runs for office from my State of California knows it is all about television. In its wisdom, our founders said if you come from a State that has 500,000 people, you get 2 Senators; you come from a State that has 34 million people, like my State, you get 2 Senators. It is very difficult in a large State to personally meet but a very small percentage of the people. So we must rely on television. That is the only way. What has happened, and the chart shows this, in California, the broadcasters have taken tremendous advantage of this situation. To say the costs are unreasonable is an understatement. They are confiscatory. They are taking 80 percent or 90 percent of our budget after we pay our overhead. TV was so expensive in my last race I couldn't even afford to have much radio. I didn't even have any left over for radio. I raised $20 million and huge sums went to television. The facts are, when we approached the TV stations, we thought we were entitled to get the lowest rate because that is, in fact, the law. However, it is a little bit similar to airline seats. If you see airline seats advertised, they say we have a special fare from Los Angeles to New York; it is really cheap, $100. Call up and they say: Sorry, those seats are sold. Therefore, you have to spend $1,000. It is a little bit similar. When we went to the broadcasters and asked to buy time and asked for the lowest rate, which is required by law, they would say: Absolutely, we will give you that rate. But be warned, if someone else comes along and wants to pay more, you cannot retain that spot. Again, everyone knows if you are running for the Senate you need to reach people when they are up and about. Otherwise, it doesn't pay. If you say, fine, bump me to another spot, you could be having your commercial aired at 3 o'clock or 4 o'clock in the morning. Not that many people will see it. So they have you in a very difficult situation. Los Angeles is the second most expensive media market. Senator Torricelli's chart shows basically the average 30-second spot is almost $35,000 in a good time slot. By the way, I once wanted to buy a couple of slots, and I was told it was $50,000, but let's just say about $35,000. Under the Torricelli amendment, it comes down 75 percent. That is a very big difference. The fact is, this is a very good amendment. I am very much for the McCain-Feingold bill. I will be opposed to amendments that I think are not good amendments, are not meritorious amendments, and cannot be defended and might make this veto bait. It would be hard to imagine that George W. Bush could look at what the broadcasters are doing to candidates, some of whom are struggling very hard to get the money they need, and will take the side of the broadcasters who are laughing all the way to the bank, nodding their head, saying: We really got them this time. I have good relationships with the communications industry in my State, good relations with the TV people, the radio people, but I have asked over and over again, how can they sleep at night knowing what the people who own airwaves in this country get so people can find out what candidates stand for. It is almost impossible unless you are independently wealthy or just raise huge sums of money. So to close this statement, I say again how strongly I support the underlying bill and how much I respect Senators McCain and Feingold. I will be voting against most amendments.

Mrs. BOXER. I ask for 20 more seconds.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, it is a pleasure to take this opportunity to draw the Senate's attention to the career of Stephen C. Leonoudakis. Stephan was Director of the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District from 1962 until his retirement this past January. Even by the standards set by some members of this chamber, this is a long time. He served continuously in the same position for 38 years. Over the course of this time, he became nearly as integral to the Bridge District as the famous span for which it was named. There are few who remember a time when he was not Director. The question is not whether he will be missed, but what will we do without him? Stretching from San Francisco to Marin County across the opening to San Francisco Bay, the Golden Gate Bridge is one of the most identifiable landmarks in the world. People flock to the bridge from around the globe, often braving the chilly mid-summer fog to catch a breathtaking glimpse of the city to the east, the seemingly endless Pacific Ocean to the west, the Bay directly below and the graceful structure itself above and around. It is a truly enchanted place. But, as the name implies, the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District is more than just a bridge with a million dollar view. It is a full-service transportation district complete with buses, ferries, bicycles, pedestrians, staffmembers and all the maintenance and other administrative challenges that come with them. This is where Stephan really shined. Over his tenure, he participated in transforming the Bridge District from an agency that essentially looked after a beautiful landmark into an organization which operates a world-class transit agency serving millions of commuters and visitors annually. This is a tremendous achievement that Stephan shares. There were times, I imagine, when people thought that Stephan might just outlast the bridge he loved and looked after all these years. But thanks to solid construction, regular maintenance and a vigorous seismic program he began, it looks like Stephan is going to beat the bridge into retirement by many years. We can all be grateful for that even as we bid a friend a fond, happy and healthy retirement. No one deserves it more.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, on February 15, the United States Agency for International Development issued Contract Information Bulletin 01- 03 regarding the ``Restoration of the Mexico City Policy.'' This bulletin reinstates the international gag rule, which prohibits international family planning organizations that receive federal funding from using their own privately-raised funds to counsel women about abortion, provide abortion services, and lobby on reproductive rights. Today, I am introducing, along with Senators Reid, Snowe, Jeffords, Collins, Specter, and Chafee, a joint resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act. As my colleagues know, the CRA establishes a procedure for the expedited consideration of a resolution disapproving an agency rule. I can think of no other case where expedited procedures are more appropriate. Women's lives are at stake. Approximately 78,000 women throughout the world die each year as a result of unsafe abortions. At least one-fourth of all unsafe abortions in the world are to girls aged 15-19. By 2015, contraceptive needs in developing countries will grow by more than 40 percent. As a result of the gag rule, the organizations that are reducing unsafe abortions and providing contraceptives will be forced either to limit their services or to simply close their doors to women across the world. And this will cause women and families increased misery and death. Make no mistake, the international gag rule will restrict family planning, not abortions. In fact, no United States funds can be used for abortion services. That is already law, and has been since 1973. This gag rule does, however, restrict foreign organizations in ways that would be unconstitutional here at home and that is why we seek to reverse it in an expedited fashion under the CRA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the joint resolution be printed in the Record.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, on February 15, the United States Agency for International Development issued Contract Information Bulletin 01- 03 regarding the ``Restoration of the Mexico City Policy.'' This bulletin reinstates the international gag rule, which prohibits international family planning organizations that receive federal funding from using their own privately-raised funds to counsel women about abortion, provide abortion services, and lobby on reproductive rights. Today, I am introducing, along with Senators Reid, Snowe, Jeffords, Collins, Specter, and Chafee, a joint resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act. As my colleagues know, the CRA establishes a procedure for the expedited consideration of a resolution disapproving an agency rule. I can think of no other case where expedited procedures are more appropriate. Women's lives are at stake. Approximately 78,000 women throughout the world die each year as a result of unsafe abortions. At least one-fourth of all unsafe abortions in the world are to girls aged 15-19. By 2015, contraceptive needs in developing countries will grow by more than 40 percent. As a result of the gag rule, the organizations that are reducing unsafe abortions and providing contraceptives will be forced either to limit their services or to simply close their doors to women across the world. And this will cause women and families increased misery and death. Make no mistake, the international gag rule will restrict family planning, not abortions. In fact, no United States funds can be used for abortion services. That is already law, and has been since 1973. This gag rule does, however, restrict foreign organizations in ways that would be unconstitutional here at home and that is why we seek to reverse it in an expedited fashion under the CRA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the joint resolution be printed in the Record.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, there is a tie-in between what we do here and the large contributions that come into this arena. Let's look at the President. The President likes things as they are. He gets these big unregulated contributions. So what has he done? He has only been in office a couple of months: International gag rule, a payback to the far right that gave him a lot of money; repeal of the ergonomics workplace protection rule, a payback against working men and women; bankruptcy reform aimed at helping banks and credit card companies, a payback; plans to open up the Alaska wildlife refuge for drilling, a payback to the oil companies; reversal of his campaign pledge on CO2, carbon dioxide emissions, a payback to the coal industry; tax cuts aimed at the richest people--those are the only ones who make out on this one; they walk away and smile all the way to the bank--a payback to his contributors. His campaign finance position is a payback to all those folks. I hope we will support McCain-Feingold. I think it is worthy of passage. I thank the Chair, and I thank Senator Dodd for the time.

Mrs. BOXER. How much time do you have?