Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I want to say to Senator Reed, he is a very powerful voice in favor of sensible gun laws. He is taking every opportunity he can. He has stated this many times, to bring this matter of the juvenile justice bill that contains all these important gun control laws to the floor of the Senate. Today he said we should not adjourn until we take care of this. I think he is making a very important point. We have five important, sensible gun control measures in the juvenile justice bill. We voted for them here. On one of them, it was Al Gore, the Vice President, who broke that tie vote on closing the gun show loophole on which Senator Lautenberg had worked so hard, to keep away from children, and to keep away from people who are mentally unstable, and keep away from criminals, access to weapons. It is a very sad day indeed that we are going home, now, right on the heels of the tragic anniversary of Columbine--those killings occurred a year ago--and we have done nothing. I want to state for the Record, every time my friend Senator Reed comes to the floor, I will be there with him as long as it takes. We are going to have a Million Mom March. I don't know whether a million moms will come, but thousands will come to march in favor of these very responsible gun laws. I intend to be there, and many of us will be there with them. We will not stop the pressure. Mr. President, every budget is a roadmap. This budget takes us down the wrong road at almost every turn. I agreed with one thing that happened in the conference, and I want to say thank you to the House. I am very careful not to say thank you to my chairman, who told me not to thank him for this because he is on the other side. The language calling for drilling in the Arctic wildlife refuge was removed. I am very pleased about that. I thank the House for doing that. I hope we do not have to face that fight this year, next year, or the year after. But in terms of everything else that happened, this budget got decidedly worse. It is leading us down the wrong road, a road that does not adequately fund education or prescription drug benefits, a road that doesn't reduce the debt enough, a road that leads to risky tax cuts that can derail our economic recovery and therefore endanger Medicare and even Social Security. This is a road that lacks fiscal responsibility. It has no room in it for a lands legacy bill that people on both sides of the aisle want to see, where we can take offshore oil revenues and put them into good use by expanding our public ownership of precious lands we are losing and preserve historic areas. I think this budget puts America in a risky, dangerous position and it does not meet the needs of our people. We know what will happen if this budget goes into effect, as it will, and the appropriators carry it out. We will see cuts to the most vulnerable population--cuts in the Women, Infants and Children feeding program, cuts in Head Start, in the Job Corps, in child care, in children's mental health. Those cuts will be perhaps more than 10 percent. We could not get more funding for afterschool programs even though we had some bipartisan support. The police chiefs all across this land know that is the best crimefighting program. We could not get that. We know juvenile crime peaks between 3 p.m. and 6 p.m. What does this budget say? We are holding the line on afterschool programs, and the million kids waiting to get in will simply have to wait. One million kids are waiting to get into afterschool programs. That is how popular they are. Ninety percent of the American people want them. The police want them. The President put it in his budget, and they have cut his request in half, leaving 1 million people out of the loop. I do not understand how we can say we speak for the people when we walk away from a program that has 90 percent approval and one we know works. Senator Kennedy has talked about the flimsy prescription drug benefit. It is not going to help our seniors if we make them think we are doing something for them but we do not back it up with funding. Senator Conrad, who will speak after I finish my remarks, has talked long and hard about a lockbox for Medicare. That was voted down. That is gone. We agreed to lock up Social Security but not Medicare. It does not do us any good if our people get their full Social Security benefit and they have to turn around and pay more and more for Medicare. They are going to be poor one way or the other. If my colleagues support Social Security, they have to support Medicare. This budget simply does not do it. My colleagues should see the letters that come from the people in my State who are forced to cut their medicine in half in order to make ends meet. They are choosing between prescription drugs and eating dinner. This is America. This is wrong. Why does this budget turn out this way? Because of a risky tax cut. Maybe some say it is good to have a tax cut; maybe they look at the tax cut as helping people who really need it. One roadmap we have is George W. Bush's tax cut. Let's look at that one. What happens if one earns over $300,000? They get back $50,000 a year. They will be popping those champagne corks in the boardrooms. But if one earns $38,000 a year, they will get back about $260 or $280 a year. Summing up, this budget takes us down the wrong path any way one looks, whether it is looking at tax cuts that are fair and targeted, sensible and fiscally responsible, or it is a prescription drug benefit that makes sense for our seniors, protecting Medicare that makes sense for our seniors, or investing in education which makes sense for our children, or having a reserve fund for our environment. By the way, on energy efficiency, they slash and burn the President's proposal, and then they say he has no energy policy. This budget takes us down a bad road. It should be rejected, Mr. President.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I want to take this occasion to say something about the Elian Gonzalez case. I have not spoken formerly in the Senate about it, but it has been addressed by several of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. For me, it is simple because it is not about politics; it is about the heart; it is about family. Some may call me old fashioned. I think kids belong with their parents--I have always believed that--unless there is some reason a child should not be with the parent, if the child has a bad parent. There is no proof of that in any way, or suggestion of that, except at the last minute the relatives who are caring for Elian, now, have made these charges. It seems as if every time the father comes closer, he becomes a worse person. First, he was wonderful. They said, he is wonderful but he doesn't care about his son; he is not here. Now he is here, and they still will not turn the child over. I have a little grandson. He is about a year younger than Elian, so I am pretty familiar with kids that age because I have watched him so closely. They are babies; they really are. They are little children. They are babies. They are impressionable. That is why it is so important to treat them well and to not use them for any purpose--let them be children. I have to say unequivocally as a grandmother, not as a Senator, I believe it is very harmful for a child to be exposed to screaming adults outside of his home, day in and day out, shouting things. There is something wrong with that. It is harmful to a child. I also want to point out there is room for politics over the Cuba issue. Of course there is. But it is not around this case. It should not be around this case, either by those in this country who want to make it a political issue, or Fidel Castro, who may well want to do that if and when Elian is back. That would be deplorable. We have to treat this child gently. We have to reunite this child with his living parent. I just would like to make a plea to those who do not want to do that and who have said that to get Elian with his father is going to take people coming to the door, that they will not relinquish this child except if there is force used, that is not the way we do things in this country. This is a country of peaceful laws. That is why we have courts. That is why people have to obey court orders. We have laws. We cannot, because we disagree with them--God knows, every one of us disagree with jury verdicts; we disagree with laws; we disagree with decisions. The beauty of our Nation is that we are a country of laws. We must make it clear those laws should be obeyed. We ought to do it in the best interests of this child, which means gently and peacefully.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I know the majority leader is looking over amendments that Members on this side of the aisle want the opportunity to offer to the bill on the marriage tax penalty. I certainly hope the majority leader will be able to accommodate us. After all, if we were using the regular rules of the Senate, we could offer any and all amendments; that is, the rules of the Senate provide Members can, in fact, offer amendments on bills that come before the Senate. The Senator from Montana, who has done so much work on this marriage tax penalty issue, and I were talking about how much the procedure around here is like the House of Representatives with tremendously restricted opportunities for debate and restricted opportunities to offer amendments. We are working very hard, on our side of the aisle, to fight for the right merely to put matters before the Senate. We may not win every time, but the fact is we are here for a reason and that is to legislate; it is to bring these matters before the American people in this forum called the Senate. The bill purports to take care of the marriage tax penalty, but I have big news for everyone: It does not take care of the marriage tax penalty. Why do I say this? I get this directly from Senator Moynihan's work on this issue as the ranking member of the Finance Committee. We know there are 65 marriage tax penalties in the code for all taxpayers--65. So if you really believe the marriage tax penalty is your biggest priority and that is all you want to do, that it is the most important thing as you look at the Tax Code--and, frankly, from my point of view, it is not the only thing I want to do and there are more important things we can do to help the middle class in this country--the most honest thing to do is repeal the penalty in these 65 occasions in which it appears in the Tax Code. However, the GOP plan fully eliminates only 1 of these penalties, partially eliminates 2 others, and it leaves 62 marriage penalties in the code. We have a situation where we are told we can do away with the marriage tax penalty, but when we look at the fine print, we are not doing away with the marriage tax penalty at all. We are only doing it in one place, completely, where it appears, and partially in another couple. And we are leaving 62 penalties in place. So I do not really think this is a good way for us to proceed because it is so expensive and we have not taken care of the marriage tax penalty. It is another one of these risky tax schemes that is going to come back to haunt us because it is going to rob us of debt reduction. When you add it to all the tax bills that have already passed the Senate with majority support from the Republicans, it is breaking the back of the non-Social Security surplus. We will have no surplus. Pretty soon, we are going to start eating into that surplus. We are going to hear Senator Baucus talk about why he believes this plan is flawed. It actually hurts some people at the lower end of the scale. It does not do what it purports to do. We are going to hear from Senator Bayh, who has another idea that is certainly more affordable and would allow us to do other things we need to do for our people, such as the prescription drug benefit. We now know for sure that our people are suffering because they cannot afford prescription drugs. If we listen to Senator Wyden, who has spoken on this eloquently, we know our senior citizens are not taking their prescription drugs. They are cutting their pills in half. They risk getting strokes. They risk getting heart attacks. They cannot afford the prescription drugs. While we are talking about a marriage tax penalty--and a lot of relief goes to people who are earning a lot of money in this country-- what about the prescription drug benefit? What about a tuition tax break for parents who are struggling to send their kids to college and college tuition goes up each and every year? We cannot do these things in a vacuum. We have to look at the entire picture. We have to ask ourselves: Do we want to give tax breaks or do we want all the money to go to debt reduction? I myself would like to give targeted tax breaks that we can afford to the middle class, who needs them, and use the rest of the money for debt reduction and for investments in our people, in our children. In closing, there is something we can really do for married people here, those at the lowest incomes who are working at the minimum wage, more than 60 percent of whom are women. Raising the minimum wage would go a long way to doing something good for people who are married and in the low brackets. A tuition tax break for people who send their kids to college would go a long way to helping married people and their families. A prescription drug benefit would help those families who are seeing their moms and dads struggling along, not being able to afford prescription drugs. So the question we face, just to sum it up as we look at this Republican plan, is this: Why would we do something that says it is relieving the marriage tax penalty when it leaves 62 marriage tax penalties in place? Why would we do that? It is not real. We are telling people we are doing something we are not doing. We are backloading it. We are breaking the Treasury. We are eating into the non-Social Security surplus. Why would we do that? Why not look at a more modest plan? We have some ideas on that. We are going to hear about one of them today. Why don't we look at raising the minimum wage? Why don't we look at the prescription drug benefit or the tuition tax break for our families who are struggling to send their kids to college? Why don't we look at this economic recovery and together, both sides of the aisle, say we do not want to derail it by doing these tax breaks, one after the other after the other after the other. They are adding up to hundreds of billions of dollars. If our President were not so strong in saying let's keep this country on a fiscally sound basis, we would be in a lot of trouble, if those bills had been signed. I asked of the Senator from Montana yesterday--I was talking to his staff--how many tax bills have already gone through here with the votes of the other side of the aisle. I think his staff told me it was about $500 billion at this point, $500 billion of tax breaks--by the way, most of them to people who do not want them, who do not need them, who are asking us to keep the economy strong, reduce the debt, and do targeted tax breaks for the people who really need them. I hope the majority leader will accept these amendments we have come up with, allow us to debate as Senators, not turn us into the House of Representatives which gives its Members very few rights to offer amendments. I hope we will reject this Republican plan because it does not do what it says it does. It is fiscally irresponsible, and it stops us from doing the good things we need to do for our families.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask to speak as in morning business.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank once again the Senator from Illinois for his eloquence on the issue of sensible gun laws and add my voice to his plea that the Senate do what it is supposed to do, which is to bring out the juvenile justice bill with five sensible gun control measures, sensible measures that will reduce gun violence. I thank the Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Reed, who is on the floor as well, for his very important sense-of-the-Senate Amendment to the budget resolution, which actually says it is the opinion of the Senate that we ought to be voting on those gun measures. It passed by a slim majority, but so far we have not seen any results.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, the reason I take to the floor today is not only to underscore what Senator Durbin has said but to say that while I think we should be doing this juvenile justice bill and passing the gun measures that lie within it, what we are doing today makes no sense at all, in my view, which is to cancel, if you will, the 4.3-cent Federal tax on a gallon of gasoline which, in the case of my State, if carried out over 2 years, would lose my State $1.7 billion in highway funds and transit moneys. The people in my State are very smart. We are suffering from the highest gas prices in the United States, but we also understand the answer is not to use this as an excuse to slash highway funds, to begin drilling off the coast of California or to open up the Alaska Wildlife Refuge to drilling. People in my State understand we need an energy policy, not some kind of gimmickry that the other side is using to lash out at Vice President Gore and say he, in fact, wants higher gas taxes, which is just a made-up story. What we need in this country is an energy policy. What does that mean? First, it means having a Department of Energy that comes forward with an energy policy for safe ways to produce energy in this Nation and ways to save energy. What does the Republican Congress want to do? I think we can look over history if we want to find out. First, when they took over in 1994--they got sworn in in 1995--one of the first things they tried to do was eliminate the Department of Energy. That makes a lot of sense. We need an energy policy, so what is the first thing they do? Try to eliminate the Department of Energy? I have to say, Bill Richardson did a masterful job of going around the world convincing the producers of oil to do a better job, to increase their supply. But, if the Republicans had their way, there would be no Cabinet position because there would be no Department of Energy. So that is the first thing they did in order to have an ``energy policy.'' What else did they try to do? Every year, year in and year out since they took over, they have not provided adequate funding for alternative and renewable energy, which would lessen our dependence on foreign oil. This is shortsighted and it only means our dependence on foreign oil will increase. We need more investment in energy-efficient technologies, not less. If you think I am just stating something that perhaps I cannot back up, let me give you the facts. On solar and renewable energy research and development, between the years 1996 and 2000, the Republicans have cut President Clinton's requests by 23.6 percent. On energy and conservation R&D, they have cut the President's requests 20.3 percent. Energy conservation grants, which are so important to encourage energy conservation--by the way, that is the best kind of energy policy, conservation; everybody wins. It costs the consumer less, and it destroys our environment less--they cut those grants by 25.4 percent. So the bottom line is they first wanted to do away with the Department of Energy. That was their program. Then they took the funding for energy efficiency and renewable energy and cut it by 22.2 percent. How about this one? Our Secretary of Energy goes around the world and gets an increased oil supply of about 1.7 million barrels a day, which is excellent work--he did a good job. We could save 1 million barrels of oil a day if we increased the fuel economy of SUVs and light trucks to 27 miles per gallon. Now they are at about 20. We could save 1 million barrels of oil a day from that simple step. What happens around here? The Republicans, in 1995, put a rider on appropriation bills prohibiting the administration from raising fuel economy standards for SUVs and light trucks just to get it to 27 miles per gallon, which it is at now for cars. This sounds like ``and a partridge in a pear tree.'' We have continual moves here: Eliminating the Department of Energy, providing in adequate funding for alternative and renewable energy, and riders prohibiting raising fuel economy for SUVs and light trucks. Here is another one. We know when energy prices go up, it is very important that the President have the ability to tap the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. It is there when there is an emergency. It is very important that he have that power. The Republican Congress has failed to reauthorize the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and without new reauthorization, no funds can be appropriated for the purchase of new oil for the reserve. So the reserve is not going to increase. That is very important. This is four policies, all of which undermine an energy policy for this country to lead to U.S. independence from foreign oil: Eliminating the Department of Energy, providing inadequate funding for alternative and renewable energy, stopping us from increasing fuel efficiency for SUVs and light trucks, and failing to reauthorize the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. What do they come up with today? Repealing the gas tax. That is not an energy policy; it is a disaster--$1.7 billion lost over 2 years to my State. It would hurt my State. The country as a whole would lose $18.8 billion from the measure that is going to come before us. I hope we will not get cloture so we do not take it up. The Senate, frankly, has expressed itself on the budget resolution against this shortsighted amendment. This is not, however, the only thing my friends on the other side of the aisle are pushing. I mentioned in my opening statement drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. There is a big debate over that: Should we allow drilling in a wildlife refuge? I say we give this the commonsense test. When President Eisenhower set up this refuge, do you think he thought about oil drilling in a refuge for the most magnificent wildlife you could find? I do not think so. Just think about it. What kind of refuge is it, if you have oil drilling there, with the risk of spills and all the traffic that comes with it? Some are again calling for drilling off the coast of California. I have to explain to my friends who think that is an energy policy that that would undermine California's economy because our tourism industry is dependent on a beautiful, magnificent coast. Our recreation industry is dependent on a beautiful, unspoiled coast. We should not use this spike in gas prices as an excuse to destroy the highway fund, to destroy the coast, to destroy a wildlife refuge. I think the American people can see through this. It does not an energy policy make, to repeal a tax which is earmarked for highways. It makes no sense whatsoever. Here is another fact: Right now in America there are 68,000 barrels a day being drilled and exported out of our country. While colleagues are talking about drilling in a refuge and drilling off the coast, we are exporting 68,000 barrels a day. There are 1 million barrels a day wasted because they will not vote to increase the fuel efficiency standards for SUVs and light trucks. They vote down energy efficiency budget recommendations by this President. They do not give him the tools for increasing the quantity of gas or oil in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. They turn a blind eye to the oil companies that are merging at a rapid rate. I was an economics major in college many years ago. I am the first one to admit that it was a long time ago. One thing I learned and which has not changed was that competition is important for the consumer. When we have less competition, the consumer suffers. We have seen merger after merger. Yet we do not hear anyone on that side of the aisle saying maybe it is time we put a moratorium on these mergers. On the other hand, they support these mergers, as far as I can tell. We need to impose a moratorium on these mergers. Mergers are at a near frenzy. Shell and Texaco entered a joint venture, which is essentially a merger, in 1997. British Petroleum and Amoco merged shortly thereafter. Last year, Exxon and Mobile merged. BP/Amoco is currently attempting to acquire California-based ARCO. If one overlays gas prices with these mergers, it is straight up. It is common sense: Less competition, higher prices. There are secret oil company documents that we know have been filed as part of the Federal Trade Commission's lawsuit to block the merger. Those secret documents ought to be made public. One can see, if one reads the filing, that the FTC has made explosive charges of oil price manipulation by BP. We know that a lot of BP's oil is being exported from this country. If we are going to allow this merger to take place, we should at least insist that oil stay here rather than stand up in this Chamber and say we are going to repeal the 4.3-cent-a-gallon tax which is going to destroy the highway trust fund. The people in my State are against this proposal. Between 1973 and 1995, we banned the export of the Alaska North Slope crude. The GAO has said that lifting this export ban increased the price of crude by more than $1 a barrel. We can create an energy policy that will result in the lowering of gas prices and, by the way, help the environment and clean up our air. What do we do around here? We do not do the long-range planning. We are not listening to the people who have studied this issue for years. We are turning a blind eye to these mergers which make prices skyrocket. We are not doing anything about stopping the exportation of Alaskan oil. We are not increasing the fuel economy standards. We are taking the short view and trying to make political points by saying: If we take away that 4.3-cent-a-gallon tax, it is going to solve our gas price problem. That is not the answer. The American people are smart. They see this for what it is: A political ploy; it does not do anything; it robs our States of needed money for highways while they keep cutting back the funds the President requests for energy efficiency. I stand here as someone who has been involved in energy efficiency issues since I was a county supervisor in the seventies. That is when we had those long lines because gas prices were high and people were scared. By the way, that is when the American car companies lost their market share because it was the foreign carmakers that were making the fuel-efficient cars. Why don't we learn from history? Why don't we do the right thing instead of this short-term idea that makes no sense at all, that will only hurt our environment, will hurt our people, will hurt our ability to build the highways we need in the future, and absolutely does nothing about lessening our dependence on foreign oil. I am very pleased I had this opportunity to speak because I think this issue is clearly one of the most important we can consider. My last point is, half of our trade deficit is due to imported oil. What is reducing the gas tax 4.3 cents a gallon going to do to lessen our dependence on foreign oil? Zero. Nothing. Nada. Let's do something that is going to help our balance of trade, that is going to help our environment, that is going to help our economy, and that is going to help our people. I thank the Chair. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object--I will not object--I would not want to give away 10 minutes of time from this side because there are others who want to speak and are counting on the minutes. I have no problem doing a unanimous consent request giving the Senator an additional 10 minutes. But I would like to retain 30 minutes of time on this side.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, this Senate should be very proud because in the last few years with our action and that of the administration, we have accommodated a million kids into afterschool programs. That is the good news. The bad news is that 1 million kids are waiting in line. This sense of the Senate simply says we should take action to accommodate those next million children. I understand we are going to have this accepted. I am very pleased about that. I yield back my time.

Mrs. BOXER. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 2954 (Purpose: To provide adequate funding for a gun enforcement initiative to add 500 new federal ATF agents and inspectors and fund over 1,000 new federal, state, and local prosecutors to take dangerous gun offenders off the streets)

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

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I thank my colleague. This is truly a bipartisan effort. As this budget stands, it is the most antienvironmental budget in history because it is the first time any budget resolution has called for drilling in a wildlife refuge. We know that when President Eisenhower declared this a refuge, he never envisioned drilling in it. Drilling in a refuge is not only unnecessary; it is destructive. Please support the Roth-Boxer amendment.

Mrs. BOXER. Yes, we have gotten confirmation. This has to do with Senator Murkowski. We have gotten confirmation from the biologist who took that photo, that that photo is in the proposed ruling area, and he has sent us chapter and verse of exactly where he was. Senator Domenici is correct, this is the second time we had this in. We beat it back the last time, and I hope we can beat it back this time.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank the assistant Democratic leader for this time. I came to talk about the Mikulski amendment, which I was honored to carry for her in the Budget Committee. But I also feel the need to respond to my friend from Idaho, who is an eloquent voice for the status quo when it comes to gun violence. The Senate did act, the Senate did act on five sensible gun laws. The fact is, we should be pushing for them because over his opposition we did pass those laws and they are stuck in the conference committee. The Reid amendment would simply call on the conference committee to do its work and report these laws out so we can turn around the tragedy that is meeting too many families, too many children. I heard a statistic the other day: 75 percent of all gun murders of children in the world occur in the United States of America, the land of the free and the home of the brave. It does not matter how brave a child is. Twelve a day are killed. I say to my friend from Rhode Island, I appreciate him offering his amendment. Also, I say to the Senator from Maryland, Ms. Mikulski, I was honored to offer a very similar amendment in the Budget Committee. The good news is that amendment was adopted unanimously, and Chairman Domenici accepted it. The difference between Senator Mikulski's amendment, which I cosponsor with her, and the one in the committee is that this one has solid numbers behind it. The amendment in the committee was a general vow of support from the Budget Committee to bridge that digital divide. We offer in this amendment a comprehensive approach to building human capital and physical infrastructure that is needed for sustained success in this century. I want to make two points about the great need we face for our children. We have a public education system in this Nation that is essentially a great equalizer. It gives all children a chance to grow up and be what they want to be, in my case a Senator. I want to see that occur for all of our children. It will not occur if they do not have access to computers and teachers who understand how to use the computers. I come from a State that boasts Silicon Valley. In Los Angeles, we have a similar high-tech area. In San Diego, we have a magnificent high-tech area, and it is moving all over our State. Those companies have to go to foreign countries to get human capital. People are being offered very high salaries to come to America. Therefore, we must train our young people or all those good jobs will not go to Americans, and that will be a very sad situation, indeed. The last point I will make is that if you have young children or if you have grandchildren--and I am fortunate to have a grandchild--you can see that 2- and 3-year-olds find their way on computers. A lasting memory I have of my grandson is at the age of 2\1/2\, with his thumb stuck in his mouth, his blanket hanging down, and the other hand on the mouse figuring out how to use the computer. Now he is 5. I hate to admit it, but he understands computers probably as well as I do. At least when the computer freezes up, he figures out a way to make it work. If children are gravitating in that direction and they can understand at that age--because their brain capacity is expanding at amazing rates at age 3, 4, and 5--we have to make sure our families can give them this opportunity. It is the right thing to do for them. It is the right thing to do for our education system. It is the right thing to do for our Nation. The Mikulski-Boxer amendment, which is supported by many others too numerous to mention, is so important. Since we can look back at the budget vote and see that a similar amendment was, in fact, adopted across the board by the committee in a bipartisan vote, this is the logical next step--to put the numbers behind the idea that every single child in America should come on board this information age and do well in school, do well in the family, and do well in a future career. I thank the Chair, and I thank my assistant minority leader.

Mrs. BOXER. I absolutely acknowledge it and state that was one of the reasons the President vetoed that legislation and we beat it back. We will have this fight again. My friend is absolutely right. It is the second time that ANWR was put into a budget resolution. He is correct.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Senator.

Mrs. BOXER. I know the Senator is aware, but I want to underscore the incredible support afterschool programs have with the American people. Ask the American people, and 90 percent of them support safe afterschool programs for our children. In addition, is the Senator aware that this is a top priority for law enforcement? Look at the FBI statistics. Juvenile crime occurs from the hour of 3 p.m., and it starts to go down around 6 o'clock or 7 p.m. If my friend could answer that question, is he aware that this is a priority with the American people? Again, I do agree with the Senator from California that this is a top priority with the American people and with much of law enforcement. I have had law enforcement officers in my State, police from local and State Police organizations, tell me they wish we would do more to deal with juvenile crime in these types of programs so they would not have to do so much afterwards, when crimes have been committed.

Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield?

Mrs. BOXER. I say to the Senator from New Mexico, I am proud to be a sponsor of his amendment. The Senator goes to the heart of what our country's priority ought to be--frankly, what all of the Republicans and Democrats alike say our priority ought to be. When we look at numbers, we realize the Republican budget is going to be devastating to education. I engage my friend in a question about afterschool programs. The Senator and I have worked hard in getting more funding for afterschool. Thanks to a lot of hard work in this Congress and with the Vice President's leadership, we have seen spending on afterschool programs go up to about $453 million in the year 2000. By the way, a few years ago it was $1 million; then it was $40 million. The need is tremendous. The President is asking in his budget to accommodate the waiting list of children, which is more than one million children. He envisions spending $1 billion on afterschool programs to accommodate that wait. In the Republican budget, that number is cut by $547 million; it freezes the amount for afterschool. I ask my friend, because he works so hard on the issue of school dropout rates and helping kids who need a hand, and he does so much work on gang violence prevention, does the Senator think this Republican budget is going to harm these million children? If we go with the President's numbers, they will be included in his programs.

Mrs. BOXER. A biologist from the Alaska Fish and Game Department.

Mrs. BOXER. No, he got the picture I showed from the area you disputed from a biologist from the Alaska Fish and Game, and he can provide you the name of that individual.

Mrs. BOXER. Adam Kolton is the individual who just talked to the biologist. I will get the phone number.

Mrs. BOXER. If the Senator will yield, I just got a call from the Alaska Wilderness League. I want to tell Senator Murkowski what they said. They said that photograph was taken by a biologist from the Alaska Fish and Game Department, and it is from the 1002 area in the Coastal Plain. So that biologist was contacted. I just wanted to correct the Record. If Senator Murkowski wants to call that biologist, I will get his name, but it is, in fact, a photo----

Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield to me for 1 minute?

Mrs. BOXER. It comes from your people from your State. If they were misleading, I am surprised about that.

Mrs. BOXER. They sent it directly from your State.