Barbara Boxer

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. September 26, 1999: Robert Coney, 64, Miami, FL; Derrick Edwards, 22, Washington, DC; Philip Harris, 27, Detroit, MI; Samala McGee, 24, New Orleans, LA; Michael D. Miles, 48, Hollywood, FL; David Sexton, 43, Baltimore, MD; and Unidentified Female, 47, Nashville, TN. 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 am introducing a very important bill, the Halt Electricity Price-gouging in San Diego Act. This bill, a companion to the bill introduced in the House on September 7, 2000 by Congressman Filner, sends a loud and clear signal to electric companies in California that the federal government will not tolerate price gouging of our people. California is currently experiencing an energy crisis, particularly in San Diego. Energy supplies are barely adequate on any given day to meet demand. Wholesale electricity prices have soared, causing San Diego Gas and Electric to pass along increased costs to consumers and resulting in bills that have increased as much as 300 percent in the San Diego area. Small business owners and people on small or fixed incomes, especially the elderly, are particularly suffering. Other utilities in the state have similar supply and cost problems, causing losses in the hundreds of millions of dollars. This bill would direct the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to impose price caps on wholesale electricity prices. The bill would also require power suppliers to refund fees charged above the FERC-imposed price cap since June 1, 2000. The precise total of refunds due would be determined by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. I urge FERC to act swiftly and bring relief to those who have been hit by this terrible situation. The fight for fair utility rates is going to be difficult and may require a number of other solutions. I will continue to work with Congressman Filner and others to ensure that we end the crisis and prevent similar incidents in California and elsewhere in the United States.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I will vote against the combined legislative branch and Treasury-Postal Service appropriations bills. While the administration has identified a couple of funding shortfalls in the bill, that is not my primary concern here, and it is not the reason I am opposing this legislation. I am voting against the bill because the Senate has never considered the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill. Let me repeat that: the Senate is being asked to vote on a conference report on a bill that never passed the Senate. This is a complete distortion of the legislative process. We are not potted plants. The people of the state of California elected me to represent them. That means debating bills, offering amendments that are important to the people of my state, and casting votes. It does not mean giving a rubber stamp to whatever conference report comes before us when we have not even debated the bill in the first place. I was considering offering an amendment to this bill prohibiting the sale of firearms to individuals who are drunk. Believe it or not, it is not against the law to sell a gun to someone who is intoxicated. I was considering offering an amendment regarding the carrying of concealed weapons in places of worship. And I was considering offering an amendment praising Smith and Wesson for entering into an agreement with the administration to change the way it manufactures and distributes firearms. But I was prevented--every Senator was prevented--from offering any amendments because the Treasury-Postal Service bill was never brought up. Normally a bill that does not come before the Senate cannot become law. But the majority wanted to avoid debating and voting on these amendments, and so they found a way to make an end-run around the rules of the Senate and to run roughshod over the rights of 100 Senators. I will not be a party to this process, so I will vote against the bill.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for giving me these 5 minutes. I listened to Senator Gramm's attack on the Clinton-Gore prescription drug plan, the Democratic plan. I will tell you, it was very interesting because I just read an article in one of the newspapers. I think it was in The Hill. It is an article by Representative Sherrod Brown. Representative Brown points to a confidential document--I will quote him--prepared for House Republicans. It found its way into the public realm. It wasn't news at the time, he says, but when you read it, it suggests that the Republicans go after the Democratic plan by calling it a one-size-fits- all plan, ``a big government plan, especially a one-size-fits-all big government plan.'' As I listened to Senator Gramm, he uses those terms over and over again. Now it sort of makes sense as to why they have put out this strategy on how to attack this plan. I had to smile when I was listening to Senator Gramm because I thought, Is he attacking the Medicare program? The Medicare program is a program that covers 99 percent of our seniors. I suppose he thinks that the one-size-fits-all big government plan--and I assume he feels that way because Governor Bush, in 4 years, wants to do away with the Medicare plan. So this is what is happening here. I want to share a couple of charts that show the differences between the two plans. This is amazing. Also, they say it is a forced plan when it is voluntary. Vice President Gore has been very clear that the plan is a voluntary plan. Seniors can take it if they want. So here you have the Democratic plan, which is affordable for all seniors. It is part of Medicare and it is voluntary. It has a defined benefit, and it gives bargaining power to seniors so that the cost of the drugs would go down. The House Republican bill has no assistance to seniors with incomes over $12,500. So that leaves out most seniors. It is private insurance, not Medicare. Insurers say they won't offer it. We have proof of that and we have quotes. An insurer can modify or drop benefits year to year. Seniors may lose access to local pharmacies or drugs. There is no guarantee of better prices. Let's see the comments about the Bush- Republican plan--the GOP prescription drug plan by health insurers. We continue to believe the concept of the so-called drug- only private insurance simply would not work in practice. That is Charles Kahn, President of the Health Insurance Association of America. Let's look at other comments of health insurers on the GOP plan endorsed by Senator Gramm and Governor Bush. Private drug insurance policies are doomed from the start. The idea sounds good, but it cannot succeed in the real world. I don't know of an insurance company that would offer a drug-only policy like that or even consider it. Charles Kahn, President of the Health Insurance Association of America. Health insurers tell us that the Bush Republican plan is doomed because no insurance companies are going to do it. Here is Cecil Bykerk, Executive Vice President of the Mutual of Omaha companies, who says: I am convinced that stand-alone drug policies won't work. You have a real plan by Al Gore for voluntary benefits under Medicare--a program that is revered by seniors. The fact is that the Republican plan, by the very companies that are making life miserable for seniors--HMOs, insurance companies, and pharmaceutical companies-- is a complete sham. Things are getting hot around here. It is ``happy season.'' It is political season. I think we have to get back to reality. Let's realize that the words used by my friend, Senator Gramm from Texas, come straight out of the Republican campaign strategy book--call it big government, call it one size fits all; if you don't like the Medicare program, then you ought to support Governor Bush's plan because in 4 years he does away with Medicare. Let's take a look at this one more time. The Senate Democratic bill, which is essentially the Gore plan, is affordable for all seniors. It is voluntary. It will work. The House Republican plan and the one that is discussed by Phil Gramm is a sham. The insurance companies say they can't do it. Thank you very much. I thank my colleague from Florida for allowing me to go ahead.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, we have a very important issue facing us in California. In fact, we have two very important issues facing us in California that are intertwined into this particular discussion on immigration policy. One of them deals with the real shortage of high- tech labor that we face in California and elsewhere in the country, where we are finding that the high-tech industry cannot find enough good, qualified people with the proper skills, experience, and training to fill the high-tech jobs that are really fueling our economic recovery and our economic prosperity, not only in California but in many other States. This is a real problem. At first, when I heard about it, I thought, could this be true? Could it be true that we do not have these workers? Since I have asked that question, and a number of others did also, there have been some studies showing that it is the case; that we do have a shortage of these workers. If we don't make accommodations for people to come into this country who have these skills, we will simply not be able to function as an economy. The second problem we face in California--and perhaps in other States, I am sure--is the question of fairness in our immigration law. Fairness really needs to be a hallmark of what we do when it comes to immigration. We should not treat people from one country who face real problems differently from people from another country who face similar problems. Yet we have that with respect to our Latin American policy. So we really need to have a situation where we have a Latino fairness act, while we are, in fact, taking care of the labor shortages for our business friends. These things are interrelated in many ways. I hope we will be able to take them up together and pass them together; or if we can't do it that way, I hope that we have an agreement between both sides of the aisle, and with the President, that we will make sure both of these problems are addressed and are addressed in a good and careful way. Let me talk about the Latino fairness question. Basically, what we are asking for is parity for all Americans so immigrants from El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Haiti have the same chance and go through the same process for permanent status or asylum as those from Nicaragua and Cuba. It is very simple. Why should we say to immigrants from one Latin American country that they would have a different standard when, in fact, there has been great suffering in all of these countries? It may take place in different ways, but the bottom line is that there are many people from these countries who had to leave these countries because of fear of harm to themselves, their families; and those people were in these countries I mentioned. We have heard about death squads. We have heard about horrible things happening to people and people disappearing in the middle of the night. In fact, the families in Guatemala have been shattered by this kind of thing, and a group of mothers got together and brought this issue to the world's attention. So there has been suffering. We remember the suffering from El Salvador with the right-wing death squads operating there, and we know the horror stories from Haiti and the other countries that are clamoring for some kind of fairness. So if you lived in Nicaragua and you were hurt there by the Communist regime, or if you lived in Cuba and you were hurt there by the Communist regime, we want to open our arms to you. Why wouldn't we want to open our arms to you if you were hurt by a right-wing regime? We should not be playing politics at all. We should say that people who are persecuted by government--whether the bullet came from the right, left, or the middle, it doesn't matter; it is still a bullet. We should be fair to all of those people. We want to update the registry so that undocumented aliens in the U.S. before 1986 can get a chance to remain permanently. The current cutoff date is 1972. Historically, we have gone back and changed those dates. It is time to do that. We want to restore section 245(i), which allows those eligible for permanent resident status, who are in the U.S. already, to remain here while the process is being completed. I want to tell you a real story about why this is so important. Jaime came to the U.S. from Mexico, and is now married to Michelle, a U.S. citizen. The couple has two daughters, both U.S. citizens. As a citizen, Michelle petitioned for an immigrant visa for her husband. When it came time to complete the visa application process, Jaime and his wife went to the consular offices in Cuidad Juarez, Mexico, for the interview. He was unaware that if he left the United States he would be barred from entering for 10 years. Michelle returned but has since lost her job and is struggling financially to support her children. Jaime is making very little money in Mexico--not enough to support his family in the U.S. Michelle finds every day a struggle to survive without her husband. The separation has caused great emotional anguish, as well as economic hardship. I think all of us on both sides of the aisle care about families and care about family unification. We know how important it is that children have a mother and a dad at home, if it is possible. So here we have a policy where this gentleman who came here a long time ago, was working and supporting his family, made a mistake and left the country; now he finds out he can't come back for 10 years. We need to fix this problem. So while we are helping our friends in the high-tech industry get workers and allow those workers to come into this country, to immigrate into this country, it seems to me that we ought to address this Latino fairness act. As I said before, I was a little dubious when I heard of these shortages in the high-tech companies I represent. So I was very pleased when there was a study because the study showed that in fact they were telling us the absolute truth; they are short a lot of people. In January 2000, unemployment hit its lowest level in 30 years. What a great economic story we have to tell. It is important to all of our sectors that are desperate for properly qualified employees. We thought we would never see this day, even as recently as 1992, which seems like yesterday. That is when I won election to the Senate. The people in my State were suffering double-digit unemployment. We are very happy to stand here today and say that because of the Clinton-Gore policy that made it through, we have seen the greatest economic recovery in history, with the biggest surplus we have seen, having created 22 million new jobs. So we have a problem, and our problem is an enviable one to the entire world. We really need to have more help in our high-tech industry. That is why this bill that is pending before us is so important. That is why I support it so strongly. We see that an independent study group found a shortage of 400,000 programmers, systems analysts, and computer scientists. We know we have a real problem. We also know we are not doing enough in this country to educate our kids. That is why I am so excited at the idea of a huge commitment to education, the kind Vice President Gore talked about--he said the biggest since the GI bill. That is what we need so we don't have to import these workers. The number of bachelor's degrees awarded in computer science has declined 43 percent between 1986 and 1996. The number of bachelor's degrees awarded in engineering declined 19 percent between 1986 and 1996. We are not turning out the graduates for the computer science and engineering skills that we need. We need to really move on this matter; it breaks my heart to say these high-paying jobs are not going to American workers. Some of the good things in this H-1B visa bill deal with retraining. A lot of the funds will come from the fees the companies will pay. They have to pay a fee when they bring a worker in to do important things-- workforce training; math and science engineering; technology; postsecondary scholarships for low-income and disadvantaged students; to the National Science Foundation for matching or direct grants to support private company partnerships; to assist schools in initiating, improving, or expanding math and science; and information technology curricula through a variety of methods. We have some funds to help our Department of Labor enforce and process these workers, and for the Immigration and Naturalization Service. I compliment the committee for its work. I particularly thank Senator Kennedy who did a very good job of working with the high-tech community. They are very supportive of seeing that these fees go to this education and job training. It is so important. It isn't enough. We need a bigger commitment to education. That is clear. When I talk about education, I always quote a wonderful man who was the President in the 1950s, Dwight David Eisenhower. Ike said in those years that in order for us to be strong, it took more than just a strong military. He said you could have more guns than any other country. You could have more missiles, more ships, and more people in uniform. But if you didn't have an educated workforce, if education wasn't front and center, it would mean nothing; we would be weak. He was the first President in modern times to say there is a role for the Federal Government in education. He signed the National Defense Education Act in order to stimulate teachers to go into math and science, and so on. If he were here today, I think he would be saying to us: You didn't do enough in education. You have done great on the military; we are the most powerful Nation in the world, but we had better make sure our people can run these very complicated military machines, let alone anything to do with the civilian sector. My view is that we have a great opportunity with this bill. It is important that we give the high-tech community the workers they need so they will stay in this country, and so they will continue to fuel this economic growth. It is also important that at the same time we are allowing so many thousands of farm workers into the country to help us--and we are very happy and willing to do that--that we look at our immigration policy toward people who have been here for many years--the Latino community-- and pass the Latino fairness act. I think if we did both of those things we would feel very good about the Senate because it would be fairness all the way around. I appreciate having this opportunity to speak on this today. I know from the Silicon Valley and other areas of my State--Los Angeles, San Diego, and even now in the Central Valley where there is more and more growth in the high-tech computer industries--that we need this visa bill. I also can tell you from my Latino community that they expect to be treated fairly. They are not asking for the world. They want their families to be reunited. They want fairness and equity for all Central Americans. Again, if there was persecution in one country and we opened our arms to those good people, we should open our arms to the others from the other countries who have been left out. Again, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Haiti have been struggling. They need our help. I think this is an opportunity to help our business community and to help our immigrants who are really making our country so strong and, in my opinion, doing the work that needs to be done every day. We couldn't find harder workers than they. They ought to be treated with dignity and respect. While we are at it, we ought to raise the minimum wage. I hope we can take that up in the near future. I don't know if you can calculate what you would make if you earned a minimum wage. It is hard to survive. It is practically impossible to survive. I hope we can do these things for our workers, for our businesses, for our immigrants, and move this country forward so the American dream is there for all of our people. Thank you very much. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, what is the pending business?

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I would like to address that subject, and I will probably speak for about 20 minutes.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may use 5 minutes of Senator Durbin's time, to be followed by Senator Graham and then Senator Dorgan.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, it is with sadness that I rise to inform my colleagues of the death of former San Francisco Mayor George Christopher, who passed away on September 14th at the age of 92. I express my deepest condolences to Mayor Christopher's family and to his countless friends. The city has lost an extraordinary civic leader--one whose grand vision and passion for helping people are vividly remembered by all who knew him. Although many residents were not yet born during George Christopher's two terms as mayor from 1956 to 1964, the citizens of San Francisco still benefit today from his dynamic and no nonsense leadership. People like to say that San Francisco grew up during his tenure, that he made it a big league city. Indeed, it was George Christopher who brought the then New York Giants to town. Mayor Christopher changed the way San Francisco looked and the way its citizens looked at themselves. He transformed the City's skyline, built the Japan Center and Candlestick Park, and he modernized downtown. He built San Francisco into a cosmopolitan, world-class city. The child of Greek immigrants, as mayor he ushered in an era of stronger civil rights consciousness and was a particular hero to San Francisco's Greek community. He was a man of international stature who never lost his close connection to everyday people. Mayor Christopher's life was dedicated to public service, and the San Francisco of today is in many ways a living testament to his achievements both in and out of office. George Christopher was an exceptional leader who will be greatly missed.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Because the legislation does not specify the timing for Resource Advisory Committee review of projects, is it the intent of the Senator from Oregon that the Resource Advisory Committee review projects in a timely manner?

Mrs. BOXER. And is it also your intent, Senator Wyden, that projects under title III may be submitted by the Resource Advisory Committees, the public or the county itself?

Mrs. BOXER. Senator Wyden, it is my understanding, along with our colleague from Montana, that under section 302(a), counties must meet the purposes of title III and section 205. You will note that section 205 explicitly does not give the Resource Advisory Committees the power to either ``approve'' or ``disapprove'' projects. Rather, under section 205, the Resource Advisory Committees are given the power to ``review'' and ``propose'' projects. This is critical distinction. Because, while we want the Resource Advisory Committees to be involved--as indeed we want all members of the interested public involved--we do not wish for the Resource Advisory Committees to in any sense ``drive'' or ``control'' or ``limit'' the use of title III funds. These funds are set aside for the counties and the counties should use them in their best discretion. Mr. Wyden, would you agree that this is the intent of the bill?

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I share Senator Thompson's and Senator Torricelli's concerns about weapons proliferation, and I appreciate their bringing this important matter up for debate in a non-partisan fashion. However, I believe that the amendment they have offered to H.R. 4444, legislation that will grant permanent normal trade relations to the People's Republic of China, does not address the issue in the most positive way. My first concern with the China Nonproliferation Act is with the name itself. The original legislation proposed by the sponsors of this amendment specifically singled out China. But, the current amendment adds North Korea and Russia as nations that are named as covered countries under this proposal. I believe it is correct to expand the list of initial countries beyond China, but I still feel that on the issue of proliferation, every country should be treated with a uniform standard. The second concern is that this amendment attempts to curtail the spread of weapons with a unilateral rather than a multilateral solution. It is clear to me that this issue is sufficiently complex to demand the cooperation of the international community in stopping the proliferation of weapons. While this amendment singles out North Korea, Russia, and China as covered countries, it also opens the door to possible sanctions on our closest allies. This is because of the requirement that countries listed in the annual section 721 report that is mandated under the fiscal year 1997 Intelligence Authorization Act be covered by this amendment. This report singles out those nations that are a source of dual-use technology which, in recent years, has included such countries as Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom. I do not believe that sanctioning our closest allies--those that traditionally support our interests--will further our non-proliferation goals. Furthermore, using unilateral sanctions rather than working with our allies to develop multilateral strategies is not the most effective means of curtailing proliferation. Another concern with the amendment is that the sanctions would deny all state-owned enterprises of a covered country access to U.S. capital markets. This was one reason why Alan Greenspan publicly spoke out against this amendment at a hearing of the Senate Banking Committee. He stated that ``. . . to the extent that we block foreigners from investing or raising funds in the United States, we probably undercut the viability of our own system.'' Finally, I am concerned that this amendment will not provide the necessary flexibility for the executive and legislative branch to conduct policy on proliferation issues. The amendment gives the President only 30 days from the time he issues a report to Congress on proliferation to impose five unilateral mandatory sanctions. After the President makes this determination, the amendment allows for as few as 20 Senators to initiate a reversal of the President's decision. It would take only 20 Senators to ensure that a resolution of disapproval be referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations. The committee would then only have 15 calendar days to consider such a resolution. If the resolution is not reported in that timeframe, it would be sent to the floor with debate limited to 10 hours and a vote required within 15 days. Given the inadequate evidentiary standard of ``credible information'' that is provided for in this amendment, this expedited procedure is a recipe for bad policy. I do look forward to discussing this matter further both here on the Senate floor and within the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. This complex issue requires further review and debate separate from the current business of granting permanent normal trade relations to the People's Republic of China.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 3 additional minutes.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I asked for the 5 minutes because I want to discuss a timely matter in response to my good friend, Senator John McCain, who made a national radio address of 5 minutes to the Nation in which he criticized the President very strongly for the President's budget plans. It is wonderful to see that John is back and strong, healthy and feisty, and I am looking forward to testifying before his committee on the issue of violence among children. But I have to say, although I completely respect his opinion, I think his analysis of where we are in the budget debate is so upside down and inside out, I felt compelled to take to the floor today to respond. Senator McCain said in his radio address: Our President supports excessive spending that most Americans oppose. That is a direct quote. He said the President would: . . . wreck the economic progress we have made during these good years. That is very strong language. I must say respectfully to my friend from Arizona, why have we had ``these good years'' about which he talks? Clearly, it is because this administration has given us policies that work. We only need to look back to 1992, the Bush-Quayle years. We had the worst recession since the Great Depression. I remember it so well because it is when I ran for the Senate. We had horrific deficits as far as the eye could see, almost $300 billion. We had crime rising; we had hope falling. We had unemployment skyrocketing, and there was malaise in the country. The Clinton-Gore budget in 1993 changed all of that by ushering in a new era of economic growth. It was a combination of discipline on the deficit and policies that would invest in our people--economic discipline on the one hand, saying to the people in the very high brackets: You have to pay your fair share, and investing in our people, in education, in the environment, and in infrastructure. It does not mean everything is perfect, as Al Gore is saying. He is not satisfied. None of us should be satisfied. There is more work to do, and we need to do better. But let's look at the record since Al Gore has been Vice President: Average economic growth, 3.8 percent a year under Clinton-Gore, compared to 1.7 percent under Bush-Quayle; unemployment in 1992, a staggering 7.5 percent. In my home State, it was double digits. I will never forget the fear among the people. Today the unemployment rate is 4 percent.

Mrs. BOXER. Home ownership is the highest ever. The $290 billion deficit has turned into a $232 billion surplus. Poverty is the lowest in 20 years. Real wage growth is up 6.5 percent. Under the Reagan-Bush years, there was a decline in the real wage growth of 4.3 percent. There are 22 million new jobs, the most jobs created in history under a single administration. Now we have the other party saying the President is wrong on his budget ideas. It is their right to say that. But the American people are wise. When you oppose every policy that led to this economic growth, they are going to question you at this particular point in the debate. Instead of having a radio address where you slam this administration after these great years of growth, why not hold out your hand? Why not hold out your hand to the other side? People are tired of this partisanship. Let's keep these successful policies going. As Vice President Gore has said, let us do even better. Let's not be satisfied; let's make those deep investments in education and the environment. Let's do even better on paying down the debt. Let us give middle-class tax cuts, not tax cuts to the superwealthy that are going to wreck this economic recovery. Let us save Social Security and Medicare. The other side wants to do it. Let's join hands. Let's join hands on a real Patients' Bill of Rights and on a real prescription drug benefit as part of Medicare--and not send our seniors off to the HMOs which really do not have the patients' benefits at heart. Let's do it together before the end of this session. Let's do it now. Let's join hands now rather than throw insults over the radio. My friends, we have a golden opportunity. I think we have shown we can work together. Let's stop the partisanship. Let's join hands. Let's finish this year on a high note, go home, and feel good that we have done these things. Let's keep up the policies of the past 8 years because they have worked. But let's do even better. I thank my friend for giving me this time. I thank the Presiding Officer for his indulgence. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I add my thanks to my fine colleague for allowing me to have this 5 minutes. I say to my dear friend from Maine that we all seem to be saying we want to bring up the ESEA so we can debate education. Yet the format under which we would be going back to this bill would be a closed format. Those of us who think it is important, for example, that there be school safety, that we be allowed to offer sensible gun laws so we can, in fact, keep these guns away from these kids wouldn't be able to do it. We could not offer an amendment on school modernization. We could not offer an amendment to expand afterschool opportunities, smaller class sizes, more qualified teachers, and accountability for results. When you say you want to discuss education, yet you shut out the ability for those of us on this side to offer these amendments that, by the way, many people in the country support by majorities of 80 percent, it seems to me you are not offering anything at all. The interesting point is that my friends on the other side say: Well, you are just trying to delay things. Nothing could be further from the truth. In 1994, Phil Gramm on your side offered a gun amendment on the ESEA. All we are asking for is the opportunity to debate this and debate it so that it is relevant to the American people.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, this Saturday will mark the 150th anniversary of California's admission to the Union. As the people of our State prepare for this Sesquicentennial celebration, I want to celebrate California's most distinctive characteristic: its tremendous diversity. California is ``a nation unto itself'' with great mountains and forests, vast deserts and fertile valleys, rolling hills and rugged coastlines. Within its borders can be found virtually every climate, every crop, every landform on earth. But our greatest diversity--and our greatest asset--is the people of California. California's diversity was apparent from the beginning. When the first Spanish pioneers crossed the Great Desert, they met Native Americans from more than 300 tribal and language groups. By the time Mexico and California gained independence from Spain, Alta California was home to many Europeans, Asians, and Pacific Islanders as well as Hispanics, North Americans, and Native Americans. In 1849, when California held its constitutional convention, its 48 delegates included men from England, Scotland, Ireland, France, Switzerland, Mexico, and Spain. Thirteen of the delegates had been in California for less than a year; and William M. Gwin, who later became one of our first two U.S. Senators, had been here less than three months. Seven delegates had been born in California: their names were Vallejo, Carrillo, Pico, Dominguez, Rodriguez, Covarrubias, another Pico, and de la Guerra. The Gold Rush brought new waves of pioneers from all over the globe. In their wake came workers from China, who built the great railroads, and Japanese farmers who fed the fortune hunters and made fortunes of their own. During the Great Depression, thousands of internal immigrants fled the Dust Bowls of Texas and Oklahoma for greener pastures in California. During World War II, thousands of African Americans migrated from the rural South to work in California's shipyards and other defense-related industries. At the war's end, California had a wave of settlers from the U.S. Armed Forces: men and women who had shipped out of our beautiful ports and returned to stay when the war was over. In recent years, new immigrants from Asia and Latin America have added to California's rich cultural mix, making our state the crossroads of the Pacific Rim and the new economy. Today California's great diversity is reflected in our Congressional delegation, where our state is represented by people named Becerra, and Roybal-Allard; Feinstein, Waxman, and Berman; Dixon, Waters, and Lee; Pelosi, Gallegly, and Radanovich; and Farr and McKeon. On Wednesday, September 13th, Representatives Farr and McKeon will host a Sesquicentennial reception for Members of both Houses and both parties. I look forward to joining my California colleagues in celebrating our great state's proud history and bright future.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, this past week, our nation and the world have been privileged to witness two dramatic triumphs by American athletes. Lance Armstrong won his second consecutive Tour de France, and Tiger Woods became the youngest person ever to capture golf's Grand Slam by winning the British Open. These are truly historic achievements. Both men are deserving of all the praise and congratulations they are receiving, not only for their exceptional performances, but also for the dignified way they have represented their country and respective sports. With the example of these modern day champions in mind, today I am introducing a resolution to honor a similarly outstanding group of athletes from years ago. The 1951 University of San Francisco football team, the Dons, went undefeated and untied. By almost any account, the Dons were among the most gifted college football teams ever. Ten of the team's players were drafted by the NFL. Of these, eight actually played professionally. Of these, five played in a least one Pro Bowl. And of these five, three, Bob St. Clair, Ollie Matson and Gino Marchetti, were inducted into the Professional Football Hall of Fame. But despite the team's irrefutable ability and qualifications, the Dons were not invited to participate in any post season bowl games. The reason why the players and coaches were denied this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to prove themselves as a team before a national audience is as simple as it is tragic. Two of the Dons' players Ollie Matson and Burl Toler, were African-American. In 1951, it would have been expected of a team with the Dons record to compete for the national championship in the Orange Bowl. When an invitation to this bowl did not materialize, everyone knew why. At this time the unwritten but well understood rule was that bowl games were strictly off limits to teams with African American players. Although the Dons were not invited to play in the Orange Bowl, they did receive an invitation to participate in another bowl game, The only hitch was that they would have to play without their two teammates. To their enduring credit, the team did not think twice about standing by Ollie and Burl and emphatically rejected the offfer. Refusing this offer was a heroic act, but not the only one for this team. Several members of the squad fought in WWII and in the Korean War. Considered perhaps the best player on the team, Burl Toler suffered an injury during a college All Star game which prevented him from joining the NFL as a player. Instead, he went back to school, received his master's degree, became the City of San Francisco's first black secondary school principal, and later the director of services for the San Francisco Community College District. He did this while also serving for 25 years as one of the NFL's most respected referees. In fact, Burl Toler was the NFL's first black official, a position offered to him by a fellow classmate at USF, former NFL Commissioner Pete Rozelle. Now almost 50 years later, I hope my colleagues will agree that it is entirely appropriate that this truly special collection of athletes receive the national attention and accolades they once earned but were denied. The resolution I will introduce today calls on the Senate to recognize the team for its achievements on the field as well as the integrity of players and coaches off it. It also calls on this body to acknowledge that the discriminatory treatment endured by the Dons and other teams and individuals at that time was flatly wrong. With the Olympics approaching, and as we celebrate Lance Armstrong and Tiger Woods for their victories and the obstacles they and others had to overcome for them to reach the pinnacle of their sports, I hope we also make the effort to honor the 1951 USF Dons--a team whose combination of talent and courage we may never see again.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today the Senate is taking a big step forward in the fight against international AIDS and Tuberculosis. Today's passage of H.R. 3519, the Global AIDS and Tuberculosis Relief Act of 2000, will help those throughout the world who are suffering from these deadly infectious diseases. I am particularly pleased that this legislation includes two bills that I introduced earlier in the 106th Congress. In February, I introduced the Global AIDS Prevention Act (S. 2026). This legislation authorizes $300 million in bilateral aid for those nations most severely affected by HIV and AIDS. It calls on the United States Agency for International Development to make HIV and AIDS a priority in its foreign assistance program and undertake a comprehensive, coordinated effort to combat HIV and AIDS. This assistance will include primary prevention and education, voluntary testing and counseling, medications to prevent the transmission of HIV and AIDS from mother to child, and care for those living with HIV or AIDS. H.R. 3519 also includes legislation I introduced last year, the International Tuberculosis Control Act (S. 1497). This bill authorizes $60 million in aid to fight the growing international problem of tuberculosis. With this legislation, the United States Agency for International Development will coordinate with the World Health Organization, the Centers for Disease Control, the National Institutes of Health, and other organizations toward the development and implementation of a comprehensive tuberculosis control program. This bill also sets as a goal the detection of at least 70 percent of the cases of infectious tuberculosis and the cure of at least 85 percent of the cases detected by 2010. H.R. 3519 has other important provisions as well. The bill includes a $10 million contribution to the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative and a $50 million contribution to the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunizations. It also contains provisions calling for the establishment of a World Bank AIDS Trust Fund with the Secretary of the Treasury authorized to provide $150 million for payment to the fund. I want to thank all of the members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for their work on this legislation. I am particularly grateful for the efforts of Chairman Helms in pushing this bill forward. This is an important step in the fight against AIDS and TB. I have no doubt that greater resources will be needed in future years to continue this effort. I am hopeful that the Senate will continue to treat the issue of infectious diseases with the seriousness it deserves. There are 34 million people today living with HIV/AIDS, and one-third of the world's population is infected with tuberculosis. Much more needs to be done, and I am proud of the Senate for taking this action today.

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 some of the names of those who 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. Clyde E. Frazier, 40, Chicago, IL; Ernest Jones, 57, Knoxville, TN; Jose Lopez, 29, Houston, TX; Elva V. Manjarrez, 35, Chicago, IL; Kimberly Meeks-Penniman, 39, Detroit, MI; Anthony L. Moore, 28, Memphis, TN; Donald Pinkney, 23, Baltimore, MD; James Riley, 26, New Orleans, LA; Void Sampson, 24, Philadelphia, PA; Michael A. Williams, 35, New Orleans, LA; and Unidentified male, 22, Newark, NJ. One of the gun violence victims I mentioned, thirty-five-year-old Elva Manjarrez of Chicago, was shot and killed in a drive-by shooting while she was sitting in a parked car. No motive was ever established for her death. We cannot sit back and allow such senseless gun violence to continue. The deaths of Elva and the others I named are a reminder to all of us that we need to enact sensible gun legislation now.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank the managers for their assistance in adding an amendment to the Agriculture Appropriations bill that requires the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Wildlife Services Research Center to design and implement on-the-ground demonstration projects to test the application of non-lethal mammalian predator control techniques. The purpose of this amendment is to generate data that can be used in determining the effectiveness of non-lethal methods for protecting livestock from predators. These nonlethal methods include: the use of guard animals such as dogs, donkeys, and llamas; the use of predator- proof electric fencing; special light and sound deterrents; and promotion of sound animal husbandry techniques such as carcass removal, night penning, and shed lambing to protect pregnant animals and their newborns when they are most vulnerable. Lethal predator control measures, such as shooting, poisoning, or trapping, should not be employed in these projects. In order to produce useful outcomes, the pilot projects should involve ranchers whose circumstances are representative of the types of livestock/predator conflicts that other ranchers experience around the country. The General Accounting Office has been tasked with reporting on these pilot projects and providing an assessment of the effectiveness of these non-lethal mammalian predator control measures. I look forward to working with the Department, along with Senator Smith and my other colleagues, to ensure that this program gets underway quickly and smoothly to begin demonstrating the value of these non-lethal predator control methods. amendment no. 3983 (Purpose: To amend the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990) At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following: ``Sec. . Section 2111(a)(3) of the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 651(a)(3)) is amended by adding after sulfites, `except in the production of wine,'.''.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I come to the floor to express my sadness at the passing of a very kind colleague. I want to say to his family and to his close friends, in Georgia and here in the Senate, who really loved him and who worked with him every day, I send you my strength and my prayers. Paul Coverdell was never afraid to disagree because he came here with beliefs. But he never, ever was disagreeable. I went back through the Record this morning because I remember actually several occasions where he and I were on different sides on issues, tough issues. Gun control, for example, was one of them, where we disagreed on a particular piece of legislation; Education, where we disagreed on a particular piece of legislation. We were yielding time back and forth, and every single time it was ``my friend from Georgia,'' ``my friend from California.'' The disagreement was deep on the issue, but it was always collegial; it was a model for what should happen here in the Senate where we definitely have deep, heartfelt disagreements but we can disagree in a way that shows respect for one another and caring for one another. And he did that. I wanted to come to the floor to say that because it is perhaps a quality we do not see enough of, and all of us ought to think about that. I do not want to repeat what has been said about his contributions to this country. The record shows they were powerful and strong--from the Peace Corps, to serving in the Senate, to helping his party, to helping Governor Bush. He was his key person, as I understand it, in the Senate. People trusted him with these responsibilities. I wanted to say as a Member from the other side of the aisle that I am stunned and saddened, and I see my colleagues are very impacted by this. I feel for everyone who feels this loss in a very personal way. I feel it in a way of someone on the other side of the aisle who really did respect this man and enjoyed the colloquies and debates we had because it never was with animus. It was always done with great respect. He will be missed. Again, I send my sympathy to his family and his friends. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I would also like to place into the Record a letter from EPA stating that the agency supports the goals of my amendment.