Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Minnesota for this amendment and for this time.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, listening to the Senator from Delaware, one would think the Wellstone amendment is taking away all the funding from Colombia. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Senator from Minnesota is leaving in place the funding for Colombia; that makes good sense. Here is what is left in this bill after the Senator's amendment: Funding for interdiction; funding for the Colombia police; funds for alternative development and internally displaced people; funds for human rights; funds for regional assistance; funds to rehabilitate soldiers under the age of 18 who have been involved in armed conflict. The only thing the Senator from Minnesota is doing in his amendment is making sure this country doesn't get involved in a conflict that could hurt our people eventually. The Senator from Minnesota is saying we are going to help President Pastrana, we will help this country, we will help this region, but we are not going to get involved with the military. I thank the Senator from the bottom of my heart for this amendment. I don't care if the Senator gets 2 votes or 22 votes; he is doing the right thing. I clearly understand the threat that illegal drugs pose to our country, to my State of California, and I clearly understand that Colombia is a major supplier of the cocaine and heroin that reach our shores. But let me tell my friends in the Senate, we need a balanced approach to this horrible problem of drug abuse. You could have a big supply, but if no one wanted to buy it, it would not hurt anyone. The fact is, the people in this country want to buy it. And there is not 1 cent in this bill, out of $1 billion--not 1 cent to help us with education, treatment on demand, prevention. This is a lost opportunity. What my friend from Minnesota is saying is, if we in this Chamber are sincere about fighting drugs, and a war on drugs, then we do not put $1 billion into a foreign country and ignore what is happening here at home. Let me tell you what happens in California and all over this country when someone is arrested for a violent crime. Mr. President, 50 percent to 75 percent of those perpetrators of this violence are high on drugs. I cannot tell you how many times when I have been in my State--maybe it is because my State is a large State--that I have someone come up to me, a parent, saying: I have a son or a daughter who wants to get off drugs; there is no room in a treatment center; we don't have money; we have to spend a lot of money; what are we going to do? I look at that person and all I can say is: Send me a letter and let me see if we can help you find some treatment program that might have a slot. Does it make sense to spend $1 billion, as this bill does, and ignore the emergency here at home? We are so quick to find the money to send somewhere else, but what about our people who are ready, perhaps, to take that step to get off drugs? Telling them they have to wait 6 months to get into a program is consigning them to more months of addiction. What happens if we can stop this whole thing before it starts, with education, with prevention? I do not quite understand the enthusiasm for a bill that does not spend a penny here at home. My friend from Delaware is as eloquent as anyone on this floor. He says, ``Yes, we are spending more.'' Yes, we are spending more in our regular appropriation, but if we are facing such a horrible emergency that we have to go in, with $1 billion, I have to say to my friend, why can't we see this emergency here at home, when people cannot get treatment on demand? You don't have a sale if you don't have a willing buyer. Unfortunately, the addicts are here, in this country.

Mrs. BOXER. Yes, I am happy to.

Mrs. BOXER. I will be glad to answer it. Because this is $1 billion to deal with the drug problem specifically. That is the point of it. The Senator made that point. The Senator from Illinois made that point. This is money that we are spending because we are stunned at the drug trafficking that is going on--and we should be. All the Senator from Minnesota is saying in his amendment, which I am proud to support, is we will leave 75 percent of that money intact to do the things we want to do to help the good President of Colombia. But all we are saying is before we get our advisers caught in a situation over there--you know, you may be right. Maybe nothing will ever go wrong with it. But all we are saying is, how about fighting a drug war here at home for a change instead of always spending the money outside of this country?

Mrs. BOXER. Yes, I am happy to yield.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator. I will continue reading from some of these editorials. These are newspapers that have very different editorial policies, usually, from one another. The Sacramento Bee: A larger problem is that U.S. aid is meant to target only Colombia's narcotics traffickers, not a 35-year-old leftist insurgency. Yet the two have become virtually indistinguishable as guerrillas extort tribute from coca growers and traffic in drugs as well. . . . The Pentagon insists that U.S. combat troops will not be used in Colombia. The newspaper says that is good. But Americans have heard that before, about Vietnam, and rebels say they regard U.S. advisers as targets. We have the rebel groups already saying U.S. advisers will be targeted. This is what the Sacramento Bee says. I associate myself with their conclusion: While it may be premature to sound an alarm, it's not too early to begin a debate about U.S. interests in a conflict that has at least the potential to suck Americans into another quagmire. Congress and the administration owe it to the country to clarify what's at stake, what is contemplated and what is not, and the sooner the better. The L.A. Times says: The administration's most frequent rationale for pumping millions of dollars in aid and tons of military equipment into Colombia is the need to fight ``narco-guerrillas.'' In fact, there are reports that all sides--including the side the U.S. supports, the Colombian military--have been tied to the drug trade. It seems that we are supporting one group of drug traffickers while opposing another group. Let's look at this one. What are we doing? We have the left wing on one side killing people, human rights violations, and violent. We have the right wing on the other side, with which the Colombian military oftentimes sides, and they are doing the same thing from the right. In comes the United States of America advisers--and I know we have some advisers there already; I am aware of that, but this is clearly an escalation of our involvement through the donation of these helicopters and advisers--and they are going to become targets in the middle between the left and the right wings. Even though we say they are there to fight drug trafficking, which is laudable, they may well go into the jungles and encounter some of the left-wing guerrillas and find themselves in a pretty horrible situation, which is something about which we need to be clear and why I am so proud to be a cosponsor of this amendment and why, quite frankly, I am a little surprised there is not more concern in the Senate. There is a Fresno Bee editorial that is excellent. It says in part: [This amendment] allows that U.S. advisers be sent to train Colombian forces in the use of U.S. helicopters and other equipment. . . . And if right-wing death squads that have been closely linked to elements of the Colombian military continue to operate, some of the blame will inevitably accrue to the U.S. program. . . . That is another fear. What could be more important to us as Members of the Senate than making sure people do not get hurt in our country, in the world, that we work for peace and all the right things? If somehow our dollars wind up helping paramilitary groups and they commit human rights abuses and killings--and we know the list of these abuses; they are horrible--somehow it is definitely going to come back to us. It is going to come back to us, and I do not want that on my hands. I do not want that on the hands of the people from my State. The Senator from Minnesota is giving us today an opportunity to do all the good things we should do in Colombia. I will go through them again. There are important things he has left in this bill. He is only taking out 25 percent of this money and transferring it to this country to help us in a war on drugs in our Nation. He is leaving in interdiction, $132 million to pay for new aircraft, upgrades for existing aircraft, secure communications, sea- and river- based interdiction. He is leaving in $93 million for Colombian police to pay for spray aircraft, helicopter upgrade, communications, ammunition, equipment. He is leaving in funds for alternative development for internally displaced people, $109 million--funds to help displaced people. He is leaving in human-rights-boosting government capabilities. This funding would provide for the protection of human rights workers, judicial reform, training of judges, prison security--all the things President Pastrana needs to strengthen the institutions in Colombia. He is leaving in regional assistance for Bolivia, Ecuador, and Peru. This funding would be used for alternative development programs in these nearby countries. He is leaving in $5 million to help rehabilitate child soldiers, children who got involved in this conflict. For people to talk against this amendment as if it is eviscerating aid to Colombia, eviscerating aid to President Pastrana, they have not read the Wellstone amendment. The only thing he is taking out is this involvement on the ground with this counterinsurgency against the narcotics. As I look around my State and I read the studies from my State--for example, in Ventura County, CA, a beautiful part of our State where there is a lot of agriculture and open space and it looks like paradise, 40 percent of the county's homeless population is related to drug abuse or alcohol abuse. A San Francisco study found in 1998 that drug abuse was the leading killer of the homeless. There are over 500,000 drug-related emergency room episodes every year. In 1995, nationwide, drug abuse cost $12 billion in health care--$12 billion in health care costs--and the good Senator is suggesting $225 million so we can cut down on those expenses. It is an investment to cut down on these costs. The loss of productivity in 1992 has been calculated at $69.4 billion. That is a 1-year loss of productivity. In summing up, I consider myself someone who is good at solving problems, and the way one solves problems is not putting blinders on and going in one direction, but looking at the whole problem. With the Wellstone amendment, taking $225 million and putting it in this country so we can stop people from becoming addicts and, if they are addicts, help them get off drugs, this is going to be a really good and balanced bill, one that I will be proud to support. Again, I thank him for leaving in this package the kinds of things we need to do to build democracy in Colombia, to make sure that regime succeeds, to train the people who need to be trained in judicial reform, to help human rights, to help the child soldiers, and to take that $225 million that will involve us, unwittingly, in what I consider to be a civil war, to take that out, bring it home--bring it home to California, bring it home to Georgia, bring it home to Minnesota, bring it home to New Hampshire, bring it home to our cities and our counties--and let people get the help they need, the help they deserve. So I say to my friend, thank you for your courage in offering this. I am proud to stand with you. I reserve the remainder of my time and yield it back to the Senator from Minnesota. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mrs. BOXER. I ask the Senator from Minnesota for an additional 5 minutes.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mrs. BOXER. Again, I represent the largest State in the Union. My friend represents a smaller State. I would just say, maybe it is my State, but when I see these figures coming back--and my friend is a leader in the whole issue of crime prevention and being tough on crime and all the rest, and he knows it is true that if you look at the arrests for violent crime in our country--I could say particularly in California, 50 to 75 percent of the perpetrators are high on drugs. So all my friend from Minnesota is saying in his amendment is everything the Senator said about President Pastrana, everything he said about the need to help his country--I don't argue with that. That is why I am proud of this amendment. Everything is left in except getting us involved in this counternarcotics insurgency, which may well put us in a situation where we find ourselves between two bad actors: the FARC on the one hand, with a horrible story of violence and human rights violations, and the paramilitary on the right-hand side here, with the same horrible record. Unfortunately, it ties to the military in Colombia. So here we are, giving us a chance to do all the good things in this appropriations bill that we are happy are in there, but to take out the one for $225 million, that could lead us into trouble. Here is the Boston Globe. They talk about targeting addiction. They say: The Clinton proposal for U.S. intervention in Colombia's Civil War---- And that is what is being supported on this floor. They say it really isn't going to work. They finish saying: History suggests that increased funding for treatment of addicts and programs for prevention--treatment on demand for drugs--can accomplish more to ameliorate the individual and social pathology associated with the endless war on drugs. This is the Boston Globe. We have a number of editorials that are very strong on this point. This is the St. Petersburg Times. We have these from all over the country: Have we forgotten the lessons of our involvement in Central America in the 1980s . . .? They talk about the fact: In an attempt to contain communism, our government provided support to right-wing governments and paramilitary groups that used the aid to slaughter thousands of innocent civilians. This time, America's stated public interest is stopping drug trafficking. But, it says: It could, however, draw us into a brutal civil war in which civilians are a target. This would be a tragedy if we repeated that kind of scenario. We have to learn from history. I think the amendment of the Senator is protecting us from just this problem. Washington should have learned long ago that partnership with an abusive and ineffective Latin American military rarely produces positive results and often undermines democracy in the region. That is from the New York Times. It talks about the fact that President Pastrana is well intentioned, but all of the programs he faces, we are going to be faced with them as well. Then, from the Detroit News: Colombia: The Next Quagmire? The Clinton Administration's proposed aid package intends to break the choke hold of the guerrillas by training and arming Colombia's military. The hope is that returning control to a legitimate government will help curb the illegitimate narcotrade. But this is a naive hope that ignores the other half of Colombia's gritty ground reality. The military is a corrupt institution with close links to the outlawed paramilitary groups that control the drug trade in urban areas. It goes on. This is not Senator Boxer speaking or Senator Wellstone. These are editorial boards from all over the country. We have others from California that I wanted to have printed in the Record. I ask unanimous consent they be printed in the Record.

Mrs. BOXER. If I may take back my time, and I will not be able to further yield because I have such a restriction, I stated that. I gave my friend absolute assurance I understand that. We are not doing enough when 50 percent----

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 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, June 21, 1999. Larry Davis, 28, St. Louis, MO; Anthony Douglas, 19, New Orleans, LA; Helen Elizabeth Foster-El, 55, Washington, DC; Izeall Hester, 41, Miami-Dade County, FL; Curtis Hill, 20, Oakland, CA; Sixto Ibarra, 17, Chicago, IL; Alex James, 20, Miami-Dade County, FL; Pedro Resendiz, 24, Kansas City, MO; Keith Siverand, 10, Houston, TX; Stefan Sure, 38, New Orleans, LA; Lung Van Lam, San Francisco, CA; Michael D. Washington, 21, Chicago, IL; Summersett Wheeler, 29, Miami-Dade County, FL; and Laran Wilson, 23, Louisville, KY.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, one year ago, three synagogues in the Sacramento, California area were attacked by arsonists. Two weeks later, a gay couple was killed at their home in nearby Redding, California. Two nights after these brutal murders, a Sacramento women's health care clinic was firebombed. These vicious crimes shocked the people of Sacramento. At the same time, it moved many members of the community to speak out and take action. Led by the late mayor Joe Serna, thousands of residents joined a Unity Rally at the Sacramento Convention Center and pledged to work together to prevent future hate crimes. Out of this rally grew the ``United We Build'' project, which is bearing fruit this week. In the name of tolerance and unity, hundreds of volunteers are gathering and setting to work on community projects: planting gardens, cleaning up schools and parks, and refurbishing churches and senior centers. The week's events will culminate on Sunday with a Jewish Food Faire at one of the targeted synagogues and an afternoon rally at the State Capitol. Mr. President, every community in America should take inspiration from the people of Sacramento. They have turned their shock, anger, and fear into positive actions. From the ashes of hatred and intolerance, they have emerged stronger and more unified than ever before. Hate crimes seek to stigmatize persecuted groups and isolate them from the larger society. We must turn the tables to isolate those who preach hatred and commit hate crimes. This will not be easy: Today hate groups flood the Internet with venom, and hateful individuals flood the talk shows with vitriol. To stop hate crimes, we must of course catch and prosecute the perpetrators. But we must do more than that. We must each act to root hatred and intolerance out of our daily lives. We must have zero tolerance for intolerance. If a friend or family member uses hateful speech, we must have the courage to say that this is unacceptable. If a neighbor or co-worker takes an action designed to hurt another because of that person's race or religion or sexual orientation, we must stand with the victim, not the aggressor. Congress can pass laws to prevent and prosecute hate crimes. I voted to pass such legislation today, and I will do so again. But laws alone cannot wipe the stain of hatred off the American landscape. To do this--to truly secure the blessings of liberty for all Americans--we must each take every opportunity to teach tolerance and act against hatred.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank Senator Murray for giving me these 10 minutes. I compliment her and Senator Snowe for once again bringing this matter to the Senate. We have had very close votes. I believe, if people listened to the arguments on both sides, they would come down in favor of the Murray-Snowe amendment. I want to say why. The Murray-Snowe amendment will repeal the law which says to servicewomen and military dependents who are stationed overseas that they are less than full American citizens; that they, in fact, no longer have the protections of the Constitution; and that, in fact, they do not deserve the full measure of that protection. I don't want to overstate this, but I think it is almost unpatriotic to take the view that a woman who gives her life to her country every single day would be denied a right that every other woman has. No other woman in America is told: Talk to your boss about the problem you've got yourself into. Get his permission. I say to my colleague from Arkansas, who says some of the commanding officers are women, I suppose about 2 percent are women. But that is not the point. Whether it is a man or a woman, no one else in America has to go get permission from their employer to get a safe abortion. With all due respect to Senator Brownback, who says this is about protecting the unborn, this is not about protecting the unborn. This is about protecting the rights of American women, who happen to be in the military, to have the same constitutional protections as any other woman. If we want to discuss the issue of whether a woman should have the right to choose, that is another conversation for another day or perhaps for another Supreme Court, which has upheld a woman's right to choose time and time and time again since 1973. Even Justices who were appointed by Republican Presidents have done so. So although my friends want to make this issue about the rights of the unborn, that is not what this is about. This is about making it difficult and really, in many ways, dangerous for women in the military to exercise their right to choose. I think that is a rather sick thing to do, if you want to know the truth. How would you like to be a woman who finds herself with this unwanted pregnancy? She may decide to go to full term. That is her choice. She may choose that. But what if she doesn't? Now she is faced with a situation where she has to go to her boss and beg to get on a cargo plane--when there is a seat available, I might say. So Senator Torricelli is right in his point; such could delay this procedure until it was more dangerous to her health, or she could choose not to be humiliated, embarrassed, and the rest, and go to an unsafe place in a country that may well be hostile to her, try to understand what the doctors and the nurses are saying, and subject herself to a dangerous situation. Why? Why would my colleagues want to do that to women in the military? With all due respect to my colleagues, I do not doubt their sincerity. But for them to stand up and say that the DOD really doesn't know how to allocate these costs so Senator Murray is wrong on this point, Senator Snowe is wrong on this point; we can't figure out really what this costs, that simply flies in the face of experience. For many years, this is what had been done. It was no problem getting the women to pay their fair share of the costs associated with an abortion, a safe and legal abortion in a safe military hospital. In the Murray amendment, no one is forced to be involved in this procedure if they have an objection based on conscience. We have covered all the bases, if you will. I don't care who stands up here and waves a piece of paper and says they can't figure out what it costs. The military supports the Murray-Snowe amendment. I will repeat that. The U.S. Department of Defense supports the Murray-Snowe amendment. Why? Because they care about the people in the military. They are advocates for people in the military. They do not think you should give up your rights because you put your life on the line for your country. On the contrary. They want to thank the women in the military for putting their lives on the line, and one way to do it is to ensure they will share in the benefits of this Nation, which include being protected by the Constitution of the United States of America. The Supreme Court decision that occurred in 1973, which many of my colleagues do not like--Senator Harkin and I had a very clear-cut amendment upholding the Supreme Court decision of 1973. We got 51 votes. Roe v. Wade got a 51-vote majority in the Senate, but it is hanging by a thread. And this attempt in this bill, which the majority side of the aisle supports, to stop women, who happen to be in the military, from their constitutional right to choose flies in the face of what the military says it wants to do for our people, which is to protect them when they are abroad. This is simply about the rights of women, one particular group of women, the women I thought my friends on the other side of the aisle would particularly respect because of their respect for the military. This is telling those women in the military: You cannot have the same rights as anybody else. I recall when we had a debate on the Washington, DC, appropriations bill. I happened to be the minority member who was bringing that bill forward. There were many restrictions on the poor women of Washington, DC, that were not put into any other bill. In other words, the people in my cities did not get stuck with particular rules that told them they could not use city money if they, in fact, wanted to exercise their right to choose. I said to my friends on the other side of the aisle: Why are you picking on these poor women in Washington, DC? Do my colleagues know what the answer was? Because we can. I rhetorically ask the same question: Why are we picking on women in the military and saying they are less than full citizens of this country, that they do not have the constitutional rights that other women have? I suspect an honest answer coming back would be: Because we can take this right away; because we in the Senate have the power of the purse, and we are going to exercise that power because we can. And they will do it. I am hoping one or two people on the other side will change their minds on this amendment if they are listening to this debate; given the fact that the military supports the Murray-Snowe amendment. I hope a couple of people will change their minds on this. Just because we can exercise our personal religious and moral beliefs on someone else does not mean we should do that. We should respect people and know we have freedom of religion in this country. That does not mean we have a right to put our moral values and our decisions on someone else. We should respect them. They are going to decide this issue. I can tell my colleagues that a decision to have an abortion is one that is very serious for our people. Women do not do it in a cavalier way. They think about it, and they talk about it with the people who love them, not their boss. That is what my colleagues make people do: Go to their boss and beg to get on a plane to get a safe abortion. It is shameful. It is just shameful. They would not want that done to their children. I do not think so. They would want them to have the chance to do what they thought was right and have the opportunity of a safe, legal procedure. Again, I say to Senators Murray and Snowe that they are courageous to do this; they are right to do this. They lost a couple of votes on close vote counts, and they are not giving up. I hope everyone who is watching this debate, be they a man or a woman, be they old or young, be they for a woman's right to choose or against it, understands what this debate is about. Nothing we do today, regardless of how this vote goes, will change the law governing a woman's right to choose. That was decided in 1973, and it has been upheld. It is a right. This is not about the rights of the unborn. It is about the rights of women in the military to have the same constitutional protections as all the other women in our Nation. I thank the Chair for his courtesy, and I thank Senator Murray for her courage. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER. I believe, under the unanimous consent agreement, I am supposed to get 10 minutes at this time; is that correct?

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise today to salute the new reigning champions of the National Basketball Association--California's own Los Angeles Lakers. The tradition of greatness continues in Los Angeles. Building on the excellence personified by the likes of Jerry and Wilt the Silt, and later by Magic and Kareem, today's Lakers regained that status by players known around the world by two words: ``Kobe'' and ``Shaq.'' What can you say about Shaquille O'Neal? He is the most dominating force in the game today. He was the most valuable player in the All- Star Game, the regular season and the NBA finals. Kobe Bryant has that creative, slashing style that is pure excitement. The way he fought through tough injuries to spark the Lakers was an inspiration. And Mr. President, I would like to acknowledge the rest of the Lakers team. The steady hand and championship experience of Ron Harper was crucial. Robert Harry's stifling defense, strong rebounding and opportunistic scoring were key. Rick Fox, whose ten years' experience and clutch three-pointer in the waning moments of Game Six were invaluable. The persistent of Glenn Rice was matched only by the beauty of his jump shot. A.C. Green, who came back to the Lakers for this championship season, reminded us of his original ``Showtime'' days when he was running the wing with Magic and Worthy. And Brian Shaw and Derek Fisher made big shots and took care of the ball during minutes off the bench. What a team! Finally, the man who brought all of these elements together, is simply the best of all time--the man they call Zen master, coach Phil Jackson. The Lakers victories were made more special by the determination of their opponents. Larry Bird and the Indiana Pacers deserve the respect of basketball fans everywhere. Mr. President, on behalf of millions of adoring Angelenos, California and basketball fans everywhere congratulations to the 2000 World Champion Los Angeles Lakers.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I want to commend my colleague from California for offering this motion. The motion instructs the Senate conferees to the Transportation Appropriations bill to reject the anti- environment CAFE rider. This anti-environment rider has been included in the Transportation bill for the past four years. The rider prohibits the Transportation Department from even looking at the need to raise the nearly decade old CAFE standards. The existing standards have saved more than 3 million barrels of oil per day. We know that raising the CAFE standards is possible and would save more oil. For example, requiring sport utility vehicles (SUVs) and other light trucks to meet the same standard that applies to passenger cars would save approximately 1 million barrels of oil per day. Because SUVs are coming to dominate the new car market, we must make this change. But under the CAFE rider, the Transportation Department can't even think about it. They can't even study it. Instead of moving forward to raise CAFE standards, what do some want to do to relieve our dependence on foreign oil? Some propose opening the California coasts to offshore oil drilling. Others propose opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling. Why put our natural heritage at risk when we know we could save oil by making modest changes to CAFE standards? It's good energy policy and good environmental policy. Mr. President, raising CAFE standards is one critical step toward restoring sanity to our energy policy. In addition to this step, I have been advocating several other proposals. First, we need to invest more in energy efficiency and renewable energy. Over the past five years, Congress has appropriate 22 percent less than requested by the President for energy efficiency and renewable energy. Second, we need vigorous enforcement of the anti-trust laws on oil companies. For several years I have been concerned about the practices of the oil companies on the West Coast and in my State of California. Several times I have called on the FTC to investigate possible anti- trust violations. Just this week, the government began investigating the dramatic jump in gasoline prices in the midwest. There is apparently no external justification for these huge price spikes. Third, we should place a moratorium on oil company mergers. By definition, mergers mean less competition and less competition means higher prices. Fourth, we should prohibit the export of Alaska North Slope crude oil. The GAO reported that the lifting of the ban in 1995 increased the price of crude oil by about a dollar per barrel. I hope that my colleagues will join with me in supporting this CAFE motion. It is good energy policy and good environmental policy.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, the Fiscal Year 2001 Transportation Appropriations bill now before the Senate contains, in my opinion, a very damaging and potentially dangerous provision. This provision would effectively bar the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) from acting on comments from the public and other interested parties on the critical need to revise the so-called Hours of Service rules, which regulate, among other things, the number of continuous hours commercial drivers are permitted to be on the road. Over 5,300 people are killed and 127,000 are injured each year as a result of truck-related crashes, and research shows that truck driver fatigue is a contributing factor in 30 to 40 percent of all truck- related fatalities. Moreover, the Department of Transportation (DOT) finds that fatigue is directly related to 15 percent of all fatalities involving heavy trucks. There are both good and not-so-good parts to DOT's proposed changes to the Hours of Service rule. While I am very concerned that the proposed rule contemplates increasing the number of continuous driving hours from 10 to 12, it would also require the use of electronic on- board recorders for long haul and regional truckers, and it would require commercial drivers to follow the 24-hour circadian rhythm cycle as opposed to the currently permitted 18-hour cycle. This is important because all authoritative studies show that the human body best resets its ``clock'' when following the circadian rhythm cycle. In response to requests from groups on all sides of this issue, DOT recently extended the comment period on the proposed rule by another 90 days. Nevertheless, language in the Transportation Appropriations bill would bring the entire rulemaking process to a halt. Mr. President, not only is it wrong for this body to insert itself in this way in the preliminary stages of a proposed rulemaking process, I am concerned that that this provision will set highway safety initiatives back by decades. Only by keeping the rulemaking process alive can the existing 60-year-old Hours of Service rules ever be meaningfully reformed. I understand that the House Transportation Appropriations bill contains no such provision, and it is my strong hope that this provision will be rejected in Conference Committee.

Mrs. BOXER. I would like to ask my distinguished friend, the Senator from Alabama, about committee report language on the Fiscal Year 2001 Transportation Appropriations bill that affects the use of small dummies in the New Car Assessment Program, or NCAP. Let me quote from the relevant section of the report: The Committee denies the request to expand NCAP by using small size dummies in crash tests. The Committee believes that test devices should be required for use in safety standards compliance testing before being considered for inclusion in NCAP. As my good friend knows, the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) currently conducts crash tests using dummies that meet a standard for full-grown adult men, and I am concerned that this report language would prevent the public from learning how new cars would perform in crashes involving occupants of all sizes--smaller adults and children.

Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Senator for his answer, and I agree that it is essential that safety dummies used in the NCAP program in fact provide adequate and reliable data to consumers and automobile manufacturers alike. I appreciate that there has been some confusion with respect to certification of the so-called small 5th percentile dummy, but I now have information from NHTSA which indicates that the dummy has been thoroughly tested and certified through the appropriate rulemaking process. Would he under these circumstances commit to making every effort in the conference committee on the Transportation bill to change that specific report language to reflect this information from NHTSA?

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, last night the other body overwhelmingly approved the conference report accompanying S. 761, the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act, by a vote of 426-4. The Senate is expected to take the report up soon. I support the conference report on S. 761 because paper-less transactions will give our Information Age economy a boost, and allow persons to shop for goods and services once unavailable on the Internet. The ability to make binding contracts online, that reach across state borders, will drive down transaction costs. The financial industry alone expects to save millions of dollars a year due to efficiencies derived from electronic signatures. Consumers will save money and time, also. With electronic signatures persons will no longer need to sign certain contracts in person or communicate via mail. Now, persons will be able to enter into contracts and purchase items, like care loans, from the comfort of their own homes. Certainly, consumers will save money with this new level of competition, and save time conducting their daily affairs. As people are able to conduct more and more business transactions online, I think we'll look back one day and try to remember what it was like without electronic signatures. Mr. President, I look forward to this bill becoming law. Mr. GRAMM, Mr. President, I rise today in support of the conference report on S. 761, the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act, also known as the E-SIGN bill. The bill establishes a uniform national standard for treating electronic signatures, contracts and disclosures are legally binding in the same way that physical signatures, paper contracts and paper disclosures are legally binding. The bill will allow American businesses to become more efficient and productive through use of the Internet and other forms of electronic commerce, rather than being forced to use paper for all binding agreements. Further, it will expand for consumers everywhere the availability of products and services as well as permit tremendous time savings. With consumers no longer bound by expensive and time-absorbing requirements to complete transactions through the mail or in person, consumer costs will decline and choices will grow. Working from home computers, people will increasingly be able to pay bills, apply for mortgages, trade securities, and purchase goods and services wherever and whenever they choose. The reach of the consumer will extend around the globe. Mr. President, Senator Spencer Abraham deserves the lion's share of the credit for this legislation. He began this process back in 1998, fathering not only the Senate bill, but subsequently generating interest on the House side. He continued providing technical and drafting assistance throughout the process. Without Senator Abraham's persistence, and his clear, constant vision of what we need to accomplish, there would be no bill. This legislation will have a profound impact on the financial services industries. ``Electronic records'' is the term in the legislation that would encompass the disclosures that banks and other financial services companies must provide to consumers. Unlike the Senate bill, the House-passed bill included references to ``electronic records'' throughout the provisions of the bill. By including electronic records along with electronic signatures, the House bill extended the scope of the bill to cover disclosures required under various laws and regulations. Far more than other industries, financial services companies such as banks, insurance companies and securities firms are impacted by these disclosure laws. Not only these industries, but these disclosure laws themselves fall under the jurisdiction of the Banking Committee. I am pleased that members of the Banking Committee were able to serve on the conference committee to ensure that these provisions were drafted in an appropriate and workable fashion. There remain some problems with the bill, but I do not believe them to be overwhelming. There are those who are fearful of the electronic market place, and that fear found its expression in the debates in the conference committee. It found its expression in provisions in this bill that apply standards to electronic commerce that are not applied to paper commerce. That is not unusual. Every major technological advance has met with fear before its full benefits were embraced. It may seem odd, but not over one hundred years ago there was a very spirited congressional debate about whether it was safe to buy an automobile for transporting the President. Voices were loudly raised in Congress that automobile transportation was not safe, that it was too risky to let the President be transported in anything other than a horse-drawn carriage. Governments passed restrictions on automobile use that should silly to us today. I believe that many of the fears that have been raised about electronic commerce will very soon sound silly. In fact, many of them do not make much sense today. That is why I am pleased that this legislation will allow the regulators to remove many of these onerous restrictions if the fears prove unfounded, as I expect that they will. And as I expect the fear to prove unfounded, I expect the regulators to act vigorously to remove unnecessary restrictions and requirements. Electronic commerce should labor under no greater regulatory restrictions than does the quill pen, if this is to be a system for the twenty-first century. We will watch very closely the development of electronic commerce. If this legislation proves to put an unnecessary burden on electronic commerce, and if the regulators fail to act, or if legislation is needed, we will then take vigorous action in the Congress to correct the situation and make the purposes of this legislation a reality.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I need to think about it for a couple of minutes.

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

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I will not offer amendment No. 3309 which was a backup amendment in case I was unsuccessful. I will be offering this when it is appropriate, not when it is inappropriate. I am absolutely delighted. I make the point, this is the first time we protected medical records. I could not be more pleased. I thank the managers for their support.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I do plan to offer amendments Nos. 3310 and 3311, but I need a little more time to get all my ducks in a row on them. I will be back as soon as I can do that.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. This is not a UC-35. This is not.