Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Energy Conservation Tax Credit Act. As the electricity crisis in California continues, the entire nation needs to conserve electricity and improve energy efficiency. No solution to the energy problem is complete without addressing the need to improve the demand side of the equation. The Energy Conservation Tax Credit Act would encourage efforts at energy conservation through a refundable tax credit, grants to schools to retrofit buildings, and increased information to consumers on their use of electricity. The legislation would provide individuals with a refundable tax credit for the cost of energy conservation measures, such as ceiling insulation, weather stripping, water heater insulation blankets, low- flow showerheads, thermal doors and windows, clock thermostats, and external shading devices. The provisions eligible for the tax credit are passed on what was included in the California tax code from 1981 to 1986. The bill also includes a provision allowing this list to be expanded for other devices that the Secretary of Energy determines to be effective in conserving energy. The bill would also provide grants to school districts to retrofit public school buildings to increase energy efficiency and conservation. Many school buildings are old and do not use energy efficiently. According to the California Energy Commission, making energy efficient improvements can reduce a school's annual utility bills by 20 percent. Unfortunately, particularly in low-income districts, other priorities-- such as textbooks and teachers--often push the need to retrofit down on the priority list. My bill establishes a grand program to help local schools make these improvements. Finally, for consumer information, the bill would require utility companies to provide information on electricity bills regarding the amount of electricity used during peak and nonpeak hours and how much the consumer is paying during each period. This is not the complete answer to the energy situation in California. But, it is important, and would be helpful in reducing the nation's need for electricity.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, earlier this week I introduced a bill to require the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to establish a Western Regional Rate Cap for the sale of electricity. This is a key component to bringing stability to the electricity market and an important step in solving California's electricity problems. Today, I am introducing the second in a series of bills to deal with this matter. The Consumer Utilities Turnback, CUT, Trust Fund Act would impose a windfall profits tax on electricity generators, with the revenues from the tax going into a Trust Fund to provide rebates to consumers. Between the second quarter of 1999 and the second quarter of 2000, the overall net income for electricity producers based outside of California who sell to California increased 333 percent. Let me also mention a couple of specific companies. These figures compare the net income of the first three quarters of 1999 with the net income of the first three quarters of 2000. For NRG Energy Inc., it was a 386 percent increase. For the AES Corporation, it was a 262 percent increase. And for Dynegy Inc., the increase was 269 percent. While profits for producers are reaching record levels, consumers are being hit with higher prices. Recent action by the state's Public Utility Commission has resulted in increases in consumer electricity bills from 7 to 15 percent. While this action was done to help the state's utility companies in meeting the wholesale electricity costs, it means that consumers and businesses are shouldering the burden of the windfall profits being made by the generating companies. As I mentioned, the CUT Act would impose a windfall profits tax on electricity generators. Each year, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, would calculate the average level of ``reasonable profit'' determined by state Public Utility Commissions in states in which such a determination is made. Any profit above this average level would be windfall profit and would be subject to a 100 percent windfall profits tax. The monies raised from the tax would be placed in the CUT Trust Fund in order to provide rebates to consumers. Governors could request that FERC provide rebates for consumers and businesses because of high electricity costs. FERC would then be charged with distributing the rebates and would be required to provide refunds to consumers each year in an amount equal to the revenues of the windfall profits tax. Mr. President, this legislation highlights the dramatic difference between the burden California consumers are facing and the bountiful harvest being reaped by electricity generating companies. In dealing with the electricity situation in California, we must always keep this in mind.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, earlier this week I introduced a bill to require the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to establish a Western Regional Rate Cap for the sale of electricity. This is a key component to bringing stability to the electricity market and an important step in solving California's electricity problems. Today, I am introducing the second in a series of bills to deal with this matter. The Consumer Utilities Turnback, CUT, Trust Fund Act would impose a windfall profits tax on electricity generators, with the revenues from the tax going into a Trust Fund to provide rebates to consumers. Between the second quarter of 1999 and the second quarter of 2000, the overall net income for electricity producers based outside of California who sell to California increased 333 percent. Let me also mention a couple of specific companies. These figures compare the net income of the first three quarters of 1999 with the net income of the first three quarters of 2000. For NRG Energy Inc., it was a 386 percent increase. For the AES Corporation, it was a 262 percent increase. And for Dynegy Inc., the increase was 269 percent. While profits for producers are reaching record levels, consumers are being hit with higher prices. Recent action by the state's Public Utility Commission has resulted in increases in consumer electricity bills from 7 to 15 percent. While this action was done to help the state's utility companies in meeting the wholesale electricity costs, it means that consumers and businesses are shouldering the burden of the windfall profits being made by the generating companies. As I mentioned, the CUT Act would impose a windfall profits tax on electricity generators. Each year, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, would calculate the average level of ``reasonable profit'' determined by state Public Utility Commissions in states in which such a determination is made. Any profit above this average level would be windfall profit and would be subject to a 100 percent windfall profits tax. The monies raised from the tax would be placed in the CUT Trust Fund in order to provide rebates to consumers. Governors could request that FERC provide rebates for consumers and businesses because of high electricity costs. FERC would then be charged with distributing the rebates and would be required to provide refunds to consumers each year in an amount equal to the revenues of the windfall profits tax. Mr. President, this legislation highlights the dramatic difference between the burden California consumers are facing and the bountiful harvest being reaped by electricity generating companies. In dealing with the electricity situation in California, we must always keep this in mind.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, there have been many positive steps taken to support quality early education and afterschool programs, yet they still represent token steps when giant leaps are needed. America must commit to ensuring a comprehensive education system beginning with early education programs and continuing with afterschool programs. This is why I am re- introducing my two bills, the ``Early Education Act of 2001,'' and the ``After School Education and Anti-Crime Act of 2001.'' Every day, millions of working parents are forced with the prospect of leaving their children unsupervised after school because they either cannot afford quality afterschool programs or the programs simply are unavailable in their surrounding area. Children need a place to go after school. An empty house should not be an option. It can be especially frightening for many students today because of the increase in crime and drug related incidents in their neighborhoods. There are anywhere from 8 to 15 million children without accessible afterschool opportunities. Only 33 percent of schools in low-income neighborhoods offer before and afterschool programs compared to over 50 percent of schools in affluent neighborhoods. Yet, unlike what most may believe, this tragic situation cuts across both racial and economic lines. Affluent, non-minority workers also leave their children home alone. According to a recent report from the Urban Institute, one in five children ages 6 to 12 are regularly left without adult supervision after school. The FBI reports that the after school hours between 2 p.m. and 8 p.m. are the times when latchkey children are most likely to be involved in crimes and other delinquent behavior, and this is precisely the time period when juvenile crime peaks across the nation. According to the Departments of Education and Health and Human Services, extracurricular activities, like those provided by afterschool programs, have proven to reduce the number of students likely to use drugs by 50 percent and the number of students likely to become teen parents by 33 percent. Statistics like these prove that after school programs are essential to ensuring the safety of our children in the critical hours after school. We made great progress in the last 5 years. Through the 21st Century Community Learning Center program, federal support for local afterschool programs increased from $1 million in fiscal year 1997 to $845 million in fiscal year 2001. As a result, over 900 communities across the nation are now providing their children with a positive alternative to unsupervised care. But a gap still exists. While eight out of ten voters in America indicate they strongly support afterschool programs and would welcome them in their community, fewer than 4 out of 10 voters say that their community provides afterschool programs. My bill, the After Education and Anti-Crime Act of 2001, would help close this gap. It would provide $1 billion in grants for afterschool programs and incrementally increase that funding over the next five years to $1.5 billion in the year 2006. This funding would help provide afterschool programs for 1.5 million youth in the year 2002 with the potential to assist nearly 2.5 million in the year 2006. While afterschool programs continue the learning process during after school hours, we also must support initiatives that ensure our young children receive quality educational experiences in their early, formative years. In 1989, the Nation's governors established a goal that all children would have access to high quality prekindergarten programs by the year 2000. It is now the year 2001, and this goal still has not been met. Importantly, researchers have discovered that children have a learning capacity that can and should be developed at a much earlier age than was previously thought. The National Research Council reported that prekindergarten educational opportunities are necessary if children are going to develop the language and literacy skills needed to read. Furthermore, studies have shown that children who participate in prekindergarten programs are less likely to be held back a grade, show greater learning retention and initiative, have better social skills, are more enthusiastic about school, and more likely to have good attendance records. Yet, of the nearly 8 million 3- and 4-year-olds that could be in early education, fewer than half are enrolled. My bill, the Early Education Act of 2001, would create a demonstration project in at least 10 States that want to provide one year of prekindergarten early education in the public schools. There is a 50 percent matching requirement, and the $300 million authorized under this bill would be used by States to supplement--not supplant-- other Federal, State or local funds. Our children need a solid foundation that builds on our current education system by providing them with early learning skills and the opportunity to further develop these skills during the afterschool hours. My bills will help create such a positive environment for our Nation's youth.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Drug Abuse 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. In his final report before stepping down as America's Drug Czar, General Barry McCaffrey outlined the prescription for solving America's drug problem: ``prevention coupled with treatment accompanied by research.'' And drug treatment is now one of the goals of the National Drug Control Strategy. 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. But, fewer than half of America's nearly 5 million substance abusers are receiving treatment for their addiction. 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, an estimated 2.7 million substance abusers are in need of treatment. Current treatment on demand programs focus on the specific drug abuse needs of the local community. For instance, in San Francisco, 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, but there is a funding shortfall. The Drug Abuse Treatment on Demand Assistance Act would more than double SAMHSA's funding for drug treatment over five years--to $6 billion in fiscal year 2006. This is an increase of $600 million each year for five years. The additional funding is provided through SAMHSA's Center for Substance Abuse Treatment and it provides SAMHSA with flexibility to target funds where they are needed most. The Drug Abuse 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 $125 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 and probation services. Mr. President, recent studies indicate that every additional dollar invested in substance abuse treatment saves taxpayers $7.46 in societal costs. Clearly, such an investment is very worthwhile, and I urge my colleagues to support treatment on demand.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Department of Environmental Protection Affairs Act of 2001. The bill redesignates the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as the Department of Environmental Protection Affairs and makes the Department part of the president's cabinet. As most of my colleagues know, President Nixon established EPA in 1970 as a response, in part, to water too polluted to drink and air too dirty to breathe. It had become clear by that time that air, waste and water pollution problems did not respect state boundaries, and that public health and environmental protections varied widely from state to state. In the 30 years since its founding, EPA has played a critical role in ensuring that all Americans enjoy the same basic level of public health and environmental protection. The Department of Environmental Protection Affairs Act of 2001 recognizes that fact. The bill reflects that today most Americans view protection of the public health and environment as duties of at least equal importance as our national programs for education, energy, defense, commerce and agriculture. The impact of this bill, however, goes beyond the very important symbolic statement it makes. First, elevating the EPA to the cabinet will ensure that the president is directly involved in setting environmental policies. While past presidents have chosen to make the EPA Administrator part of cabinet-level discussions, this bill expresses Congress' will that environmental protection is given its place among the other national issues which occupy the president and his cabinet. Second, this bill will ensure that the EPA Administrator is on equal footing with her colleagues in the rest of the cabinet. This is important because some of the worst polluters in the nation are departments of the federal government. For example, Department of Defense and Department of Energy facilities are some of the most polluted toxic waste sites in the nation. EPA must be on equal footing with those departments if it is to ensure that the environment is restored and that the public health is protected at those sites. Third, this bill will strengthen EPA's role in negotiating international agreements with foreign nations. Protection of public health and the environment has increasingly become an important part of foreign relations. Most of the industrialized nations have afforded top status to their environmental officials. This bill will afford that status to our top environmental official. I am hopeful that my House and Senate colleagues can act quickly to ensure the passage of this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be print in the Record.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill relating to the electricity crisis in California. As a result of deregulation, Californians are confronting higher electricity prices and an unreliable supply Last week, Northern California experienced rolling blackouts. Children were trapped in elevators. Manufacturing plans had to shut down, costing millions of dollars. Entire agricultural crops can be destroyed with a blackout. Obviously, this situation does not just affect Californians but can impact the entire nation's economy. The bill I am introducing today is similar to legislation I introduced last fall with Representative Bob Filner. The California Electricity Consumers Relief Act would establish a Western Regional Cap for electricity rates. The electricity shortage experienced by California in recent months, clearly demonstrates that a price cap must be imposed on the entire Western United States to be effective. If the price for electricity is higher in other Western states than California, then a generator chooses to sell power outside of California. A regional price cap will being some stability to the market by ensuring a reliable supply for the entire Western region, so that no state will confront a shortage. I urge Congress to bring an end to this crisis. We must now act to bring Californians and other Western states what they need--an adequate supply of electricity at a fair and reasonable price. By implementing this region-wide cap, we can address a major cause of California's energy crisis.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill relating to the electricity crisis in California. As a result of deregulation, Californians are confronting higher electricity prices and an unreliable supply Last week, Northern California experienced rolling blackouts. Children were trapped in elevators. Manufacturing plans had to shut down, costing millions of dollars. Entire agricultural crops can be destroyed with a blackout. Obviously, this situation does not just affect Californians but can impact the entire nation's economy. The bill I am introducing today is similar to legislation I introduced last fall with Representative Bob Filner. The California Electricity Consumers Relief Act would establish a Western Regional Cap for electricity rates. The electricity shortage experienced by California in recent months, clearly demonstrates that a price cap must be imposed on the entire Western United States to be effective. If the price for electricity is higher in other Western states than California, then a generator chooses to sell power outside of California. A regional price cap will being some stability to the market by ensuring a reliable supply for the entire Western region, so that no state will confront a shortage. I urge Congress to bring an end to this crisis. We must now act to bring Californians and other Western states what they need--an adequate supply of electricity at a fair and reasonable price. By implementing this region-wide cap, we can address a major cause of California's energy crisis.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to share with the Senate my thoughts on the life of a friend and former member of this body, Senator Alan Cranston. Alan passed away on December 31, 2000 at 86 at home in California. It was a quiet end for a man who throughout his career raised his voice for so many. Alan enjoyed a long life and was blessed with a keen mind, a strong spirit and simple common sense. In return for these gifts he worked to his last days to make this world a more peaceful and humane place. I will miss him and his example very much. Alan was first elected to the Senate in 1968. He served the people of California in this Chamber for four terms, eventually retiring in 1993. It was my honor to have been elected to the seat he vacated. Prior to his Senate service he was Controller for the State of California. He served his country in World War II, first in the Office of War Information and then in the U.S. Army. After graduating from Stanford University and before the onset of the war, Alan was an overseas correspondent for the International News Service covering such places as England, Germany, Italy and Ethiopia. While a correspondent he saw an English language version of Mein Kampf, sanitized to hide the truth from Americans. He published his own version highlighting the ``worst of Hitler'' and was sued by Hitler's publisher. While he lost the suit, a half a million copies had already been distributed helping to educate many about the true nature of Nazism and Hitler. As United States Senator he stood out as a tireless and effective advocate for his constituents. No matter how he grew in stature and influence within this institution, he never forgot those who sent him to Washington and why. Alan cared deeply for people. He pursued policies that reflected his unwavering belief in the fundamental dignity and worth of others. As Chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, Alan played an invaluable role in America's efforts to assist our service men and women and their families. In addition, he was a national leader on the environment, civil rights, workers' rights, education and so much more. A consensus builder, he achieved success through a firm understanding of the issues and a finely developed sense of not only what was needed, but what was possible. Alan left his mark on many issues, but his true passion was world peace. As a witness to the horror and devastation of World War II, he committed himself to creating a world where conflicts between nations could be resolved without bloodshed. He was an outspoken opponent of the war in Vietnam and made the abolition of nuclear weapons a central part of his agenda in the Senate. Upon his retirement, he devoted himself to the latter cause almost exclusively. Encouraged by the end of the Cold War, after leaving the Senate he became chairman of the Gorbachev Foundation, which later changed its name to the State of the World Forum. Based in San Francisco, the Forum has developed into a widely respected organization for the discussion of global issues. In recent years, the Forum has hosted multi-day gatherings attended by world leaders. This year's gathering occurred in New York and coincided with the U.N.'s Millennial Summit. As an authority on nonproliferation, Alan Cranston prepared the program on the subject for participants who included former heads of state, and some of the most influential minds in foreign affairs, business, the arts and the media. Alan also formed the Global Security Institute. There he and others conceived of Project Abolition, the Responsible Security Appeal. The purpose of this coalition is to rally people, politicians and governments to support policies that lead to a world safe from the nuclear threat. I am sure Alan would be pleased that this effort will continue even without him. Recently, CNN founded Ted Turner and former Senator Sam Nunn announced that they were forming a foundation with an annual budget of $50 million dedicated to the elimination of weapons of mass destruction. This is great news, and further evidence that Alan's message of peace continues to resonate. In many ways, this foundation is a tribute to him and his legacy. Senator Alan Cranston was a leader and citizen that California, the United States and the world could be proud of. Although we are all a little poorer today at his passing, in the final tally we are all much richer for having known him and benefited from this time among us. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, it has been more than a year since the Columbine tragedy, but still this Republican Congress refuses to act on sensible gun legislation. Since Columbine, thousands of Americans have been killed by gunfire. Until we act, Democrats in the Senate will read the names of some of those who have lost their lives to gun violence in the past year, and we will continue to do so every day that the Senate is in session. In the name of those who died, we will continue this fight. Following are the names of some of the people who were killed by gunfire one year ago today. December 15, 1999: Jerome Anderson, 26, Washington, DC; Danta Dandridge, 17, Washington, DC; Diane Gibbs, 39, Atlanta, GA; Jimmy Gibbs, 21, Atlanta, GA; Kasmas Hall, 18, Miami-Dade County, FL; Byron Johnson, 21, Pittsburgh, PA; Antoine Omar, 19, Boston, MA; Glenn Roundtree, 29, Chicago, IL; Oscar Segura Nieto-Lopez, 32, St. Paul, MN; Ricky Truss, 27, Detroit, MI; William Wilder, 39, New Orleans, LA; Venis Woods, 29, Philadelphia, PA; and Unidentified Male, 24, Newark, NJ. We cannot sit back and allow such senseless gun violence to continue. The deaths of these people are a reminder to all of us that we need to enact sensible gun legislation now.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to my colleague from Virginia, Senator Chuck Robb, who will leave the Senate in January after 12 years of exemplary service to his state as a member of this body. As others have noted, Chuck Robb has had a long and distinguished career in public service. He served his country for 34 years in the Marine Corps and reserves, and he is a highly decorated combat veteran. He was a widely popular governor of Virginia, who increased the state's education budget by $1 billion, and appointed many women and minorities to top government jobs. And he has now served two terms as a United States Senator, where he has been praised for his leadership on national security, education, and the budget. But I would like to note several aspects of Chuck Robb's Senate tenure that may not be quite as familiar, but for which I will always remember him and be grateful to him. The fact is that he was a hero on many issues: civil rights, human rights, and a woman's right to choose. Time and time and time again, even in the most difficult and politically charged debates, Senator Robb was steadfast in his support for the precious right of women to control their own bodies without interference from government. He led the fight in the Senate to bring justice to African-American farmers throughout the nation who had been discriminated against by the Department of Agriculture. His legislation helped lead to the largest civil rights settlement in our history. And then, in February 1993, he delivered a powerful and moving speech on the floor of the Senate, the message of which was that all of God's children, regardless of sexual orientation, should be treated equally in the military. I will always remember Senator Robb's eloquent words: The issue should be not what kind of person you are but what kind of soldier, sailor, airman, or marine you are. . . . I would suggest to you, Mr. President, morale is in the heart of each service person. The threat to morale comes not from the orientation of a few but from the closed minds of many. I was deeply touched by these words of tolerance and understanding, particularly because they came from one who had served so gallantly in the Marine Corps. So I salute you and I thank you, Chuck, and send you my very best wishes as you move on to new challenges. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the statement be printed in the Record.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am heartbroken that the Supreme Court has issued an opinion that, to me, undermines a core democratic principle--that every vote counts and every vote must be counted. I am also perplexed that the Court sent the case back to the Florida Supreme Court for further proceedings on the recount, since it did so while also suggesting that time had run out for the recount. That suggestion is disingenuous, considering that the U.S. Supreme Court itself helped cause the clock to run out when it voted 5-4 to stop the recount last Saturday by issuing a stay. I want to compliment the four justices who voted against the stay order--Justices Stevens, Souter, Breyer and Ginsberg--two appointed by Republican Presidents and two by a Democrat. While several of them recognized constitutional problems in the way the recount was being carried out, they clearly understood the overriding importance of counting every legal vote. In his dissenting opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens pointed out that the Florida Supreme Court, in ordering the recount, merely ``. . . did what courts do--it decided the case before it in light of the legislature's intent to leave no legally cast vote uncounted.'' He stated that in its action ``the majority effectively orders the disenfranchisement of an unknown number of voters whose ballots reveal their intent--and are therefore legal votes under state law--but were for some reason rejected by ballot-counting machines.'' The closing words of Justice Stevens, I believe, will go down in history as the thoughts of a great Supreme Court justice: Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law. When the next President is sworn into office in January, I pledge to do all that I can to help the country put this extraordinary and unsettling election behind us. I will do my best in the United States Senate to advance the interests of the people of California, who have so many needs and rights that remain to be addressed. There are many lessons to be learned from these events. We need to change our election procedures to make them uniformly as reliable and accurate as possible, so that we will never again be in this situation. And more Americans must now realize that their participation in the political process is vitally important. I will work on these challenges in the coming months, for the sake of Californians and for all Americans.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank the Chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee, Senator Campbell, and the distinguished ranking Democrat, Senator Inouye, for moving this important bill to the Senate floor. This bill will restore Federal recognition and associated rights, privileges, and eligibility for Federal services and benefits to the Federated Indians of the Graton Rancheria of California, formerly known as the Coastal Miwok tribe. This bill provides much needed recognition for the tribe. The Graton Rancheria have been waiting decades for the Government to undo a past wrong. In 1958, the Federal Government stripped the Graton Rancheria of Federal recognition. Recently, it was found that the tribe holds a small parcel of land in Graton, CA that had been set aside as reservation for them in the 1920s. As passed in the House of Representatives, this bill included language that waived the tribe's gaming rights. I supported that language, as did the Graton Rancheria and the local community. However, it was clear that the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs and the Bureau of Indian Affairs would not support the language. The chairman and ranking member of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs have offered an amendment that removes the no-gaming clause. In his statement accompanying the amendment, Senator Inouye asserts that the no-gaming clause is unnecessary because the Graton Rancheria have no intention of conducting gaming. I hope with the Senate passage of this bill that the House, the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, and the administration can work to resolve the differences over the no-gaming clause and come to an agreement on either bill or report language.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I have one additional question for my colleague from Ohio. The legislation also creates a Scientific Advisory Committee, SAC, to advise ICCVAM, and provides that the SAC should be comprised of at least one representative from industry and one representative of a national animal protection organization. My understanding of this provision is that it is not exclusive, and that the SAC will also include at least one representative from the environmental community and one member from the public health community as equal voting members. I along with my colleague from Montana view this issue of equal representation as essential to this legislation. Can we have the commitment of the Senator from Ohio that at least one voting member of the SAC will be from the environmental or public health community?

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I appreciate the work of my colleague from Ohio, Mr. DeWine on S. 1495, the ICCVAM Authorization Act of 2000, and was pleased to cosponsor that legislation. The measure will help ensure that we improve the review of chemical test methods employed by federal agencies with the ultimate goal of reducing the unnecessary use of animals in testing. The bill we consider here today is the House-passed version, H.R. 4281, which is somewhat different than S. 1495. Would the Senator from Ohio be willing to clarify a few important points about this legislation for our colleagues?

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today, I note with sadness the passing of David Brower, a great conservationist who died last month at his home in Berkeley, California. David Brower worked for more than half a century to preserve and protect the American landscape he loved so well. He served our nation in war and peacetime as a soldier, writer, and activist, and enriched the lives of many Americans. Born in Berkeley in 1912, young David Brower learned to appreciate nature by guiding his blind mother on walks through the Berkeley hills. In the 1930s, he worked at Yosemite National Park and became a skilled mountaineer. During World War II he trained troops in climbing techniques, wrote the Army's alpine manual, and fought in northern Italy. After the war he returned to California and volunteered at the Sierra Club, which was then a hiking organization with little involvement in public policy. After writing the first Sierra Club Manual, he became the club's first executive director in 1952. Under his leadership, the club's membership grew from 7,000 to 70,000 as it became the nation's leading environmental organization. After leading the Sierra Club for 17 years, Mr. Brower went on to found the Friends of the Earth and the Earth Island Institute, and he helped to establish the League of Conservation Voters. During the 1950s and 1960s, Mr. Brower led the Sierra Club's successful efforts to block the construction of dams in Grand Canyon National Park and Dinosaur National Monument. He often said, half jokingly, that ``All I have been able to do in my career is to slow the rate at which things get worse.'' But in fact he made things better. David Brower was instrumental in the creation of Redwoods National Park, North Cascades National Park, and Cape Cod National Seashore as well as the passage of the Wilderness Act and establishment of the National Wilderness Preservation System. Our Nation has lost a giant, but we must try to walk in his footsteps. David Brower's life and legacy will live as long as we continue to preserve, protect, and enjoy America's natural treasures.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate yesterday passed legislation to name the new federal courthouse in Riverside, California the George E. Brown, Jr. United States Courthouse. It is altogether fitting that the federal courthouse in Riverside be named for the late Representative Brown. It was through his work for the people of the 42nd district of California that the courthouse was built. I only wish that he had lived to see its grand opening next year. George was a champion of justice. Before he could vote, he helped to integrate university student housing. He fought against the internment of Japanese-Americans in World War II and stood on the side of workers in labor battles. George always asked us to use all of our assembled knowledge to improve the lives of our fellow humans and our world. In my long association with George Brown, I always knew on which side he would stand: on the side of justice. Since his death, we have seen many tributes to the late George Brown. The USDA Salinity Laboratory at the University of California bears his name. The giant Sequoias that George loved now are protected with monument status, and he was remembered at the dedication ceremony. More tributes are planned. However, I am particularly pleased that the federal court building in Riverside will be known as the George E. Brown, Jr. United States Courthouse.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I thank my friend.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise today to bid farewell to the senior Senator from New Jersey: my dear friend and distinguished colleague, Senator Frank Lautenberg. This is a bittersweet occasion for me--sad because Frank will be leaving us soon, but sweet because he leaves us with so many fond memories and such a great example of what it means to serve the American people through this great institution. Frank Lautenberg has been one of my closest friends in the Senate. He has also been my colleague, confidante, mentor, and role model. Intensely patriotic and ethical, he takes his role as legislator very seriously without taking himself too seriously. A man of deep and wide- ranging intellect, he is quick to grasp the essentials of any issue before the Senate yet slow to criticize others, even those with whom he disagrees. A tolerant and benevolent man, he is ever ready to compromise in the name of harmony yet firm in his core beliefs and steadfast in acting on them. Frank Lautenberg is a living embodiment of the American Dream. The son of poor immigrants, he served in World War II, graduated from Columbia University on the G.I. Bill, went into business with friends and developed one of the world's leading computer services companies. He chose public service not as a career move but as a way of giving something back to the people of his state and nation. During his three terms in the Senate, Frank Lautenberg has worked to defend and improve the health, safety, and security of every American family. He wrote the laws to raise the national drinking age, ban smoking on airplanes, toughen the standards on drunk driving, and prevent anyone convicted of domestic violence from owning a gun. He helped write the Superfund, Clean Air, and Safe Drinking Water Acts. And he co-authored the Balanced Budget Agreement of 1997, which put America on the path to sustaining Social Security and Medicare. Frank Lautenberg served the public good before he came to the Senate, and he will do so long after he leaves us. He founded the Lautenberg Center for General and Tumor Immunology three decades ago, and he continues to support its work as one of the world's leading cancer research institutions. A noted philanthropist, he continues to support charitable work in education, the environment, the arts, and the Jewish community. Mr. President, Frank Lautenberg is someone I could point out to my grandson and say, ``There is a man.'' He is a great human being, a great American, and a great Senator. His departure will be a great loss to the Senate, but his presence has been a great gift to us all. I thank him for all that he has done for me, for this body, and for the people of the United States.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I thank my friend from Massachusetts for coming down here and putting into words what so many of us are feeling--just this sense of unfairness, not only about the process, which he described so well, taking what is supposed to be a Small Business bill, hollowing it out and stuffing it full of other issues, leaving out the people who are supposed to be involved, but also the substance of what is actually in this bill. I want to probe him on one question. Is the Senator aware that tens of billions of dollars in this bill are going to the HMOs, and there is not one string attached that the HMOs have to serve the senior citizens who they kicked out of Medicare? We are giving bags of money to one of the most unpopular businesses in America today because they do not treat people fairly, without one requirement that they take these seniors home again and give them health care again. I say to the Senator, you have seen it in your State and I have seen it in my State, where seniors were told: Join this HMO through Medicare. You won't have any copayments. You will be fine, only to wake up in the morning and be kicked out. Could my colleague talk about the fairness or unfairness of that?

Mrs. BOXER. Will my friend yield for a question, Mr. President?

Mrs. BOXER. Yes.

Mrs. BOXER. Just on that provision.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to my good friend, California's good neighbor, and our distinguished colleague, Senator Richard H. Bryan of Nevada. With his impending retirement from the Senate, Senator Bryan will culminate 36 years of public service at the local, state, and national levels. He has served the people of Nevada as a district attorney, public defender, state legislator, state attorney general, governor, and United States Senator. Throughout his career, he has been known for his intelligence, integrity, and good sense. During his two terms in the Senate, Dick Bryan has addressed a variety of national issues without forgetting the people of his state. He has been a leading champion of American consumers, fashioning laws to require air bags in automobiles, protect Internet privacy, reduce telemarketing fraud, and reduce errors in personal credit reports. He has fought for American taxpayers by working to reduce wasteful spending, eliminate special-interest subsidies, and balance the Federal budget. Senator Bryan has been a vigilant and tireless protector of Nevada's environment, working to save Lake Tahoe and prevent the construction of a nuclear waste storage facility at the Nevada Test Site. Earlier this month, he won another victory for his home State's environment with the passage of the Black Rock Desert--High Rock Canyon Emigrant Trails National Conservation Area Act, which will provide added protection to nearly 800,000 acres of federal land in northwestern Nevada. Senator Bryan is a gentleman, a man known for his ability to work with people of all parties and persuasions. In bidding him farewell, I hope that the Senate will carry on his spirit of comity, courtesy, and bipartisanship.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise today to bid farewell to Senator Robert Kerrey, a distinguished friend and colleague who will be leaving the Senate at the close of this Congress. Bob Kerrey is a true American hero, a man of great physical and political courage. We all know about his heroism on the battlefield, though he rarely mentions it and does nothing to solicit the admiration showered upon him. A man of peace and goodwill, he speaks with unparalleled authority on the need to maintain a strong national defense while working for reconciliation with America's former adversaries. Bob Kerrey's political courage is evidenced by his independence, candor, and willingness to tackle the toughest issues. He took on entitlement reform when few others dared look it in the face. He took the first brave steps toward a bipartisan reform of Medicare in order to guarantee the program's long-term stability. And he has continued to press for universal health care coverage for all Americans. In an era when even the finest legislators hesitate to speak before consulting the polls, Bob Kerrey says what he means and means what he says. He never hesitates to follow his personal moral compass, even when this means working with the other political party or criticizing his own. Mr. President, as Senator Kerrey leaves the halls of Congress for the groves of academe, I know that he will bring the same courage and rigor to his new career that he has displayed here in the Senate. I join my colleagues from both sides of the aisle in sending him off with our best wishes and profound gratitude.