Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. One last question. As with everything else, we have to make choices about what we will do to help people. There is a big debate across party lines about the surplus. We know it is reflected in the Presidential race, even within the parties. I raise the subject of the marriage tax penalty. We know there is a penalty in our Tax Code for married couples, and everyone in this Chamber wants to fix it. If we fix it in the wrong way, where we help, instead of Mrs. Jones or Mrs. Smith, Mrs. Trump or Mrs. Helmsley, then we won't have enough money to take care of the one third of the Medicare beneficiaries who do not have prescription drug benefits, resulting in the story the Senator told in a very poignant way about a woman chopping up her prescription pill that she needs to stay alive, stay healthy, be vibrant, and have those golden years, as we always say we promise our seniors. We do not have a bottomless cookie jar. We learned that lesson in the 1980s. We have to make some tough choices. When we talk about a prescription drug benefit, we are not enacting it in a vacuum. We are not just coming down with a laundry list of everything we wanted to do with the surplus. We have thought it out. As the Republican Party decides where it is going to go with the surplus, I hope they will consider, since they run this place right now, that if you give it all away to the wealthiest people with benefits they do not need because they are doing just fine, that they will be forgetting these senior citizens who are living 5 miles to the north of North Dakota and going to Canada to buy their drugs. That, as you say, is dicey right now. It is not even allowed, unless they have a particular note. So my closing question is a global question. It is more of a larger issue. How do we make room for this and can we make room for this benefit?

Mrs. BOXER. If my friend will continue to yield, this is my next question. I am appreciative the Senator has gone in this direction. The General Accounting Office found United States drug prices for specific drugs were, on average, one-third higher than in Canada and 60 percent higher than in the United Kingdom. When my friend shows charts, this has been borne out by studies of a Federal agency. The Federal Trade Commission has reported that drug manufacturers use a two-tiered pricing structure under which they charge higher prices to those without insurance. In other words, if I go to a pharmacy where my insurance is not accepted, it costs an arm and a leg. However, if I have coverage, then the cost to my insurance company is way less. I pivot to this question: Because the Federal Trade Commission has studied it, we know there is a two-tiered pricing insurance, for those who have insurance and those who do not, so does it not make sense, for all of our people whom we can possibly reach, particularly those in the older years where they need these drugs to survive, thrive, and live, that they get into some kind of system? In other words, does my friend agree that even though we don't have to get into the details of what system it would be, in unity there is strength? If we can walk away from the high-tiered pricing and get into a system where citizens can avail themselves of the better price, this is something we should fight for. If we don't fight for it here, I don't know whom we are representing. Would my friend comment?

Mrs. BOXER. No. I am done.

Mrs. BOXER. I am so happy Senator Dorgan took the time to come over here to discuss this. I thought it would be interesting to talk with him about some facts that came out in recent studies because he has been on this issue before a lot of folks. He was talking about the cost of prescription drugs. I think he would be a very good person for me to direct a few questions to, if he would be willing to do that. When he talked about a particular woman who came to him and told him that she essentially could not afford to take the correct number of pills for her condition and she was trying to figure it out--well, if I took a half a pill now and a quarter of a pill later--I wonder if the Senator is aware that this is a widespread situation. If the Senator could comment on it, one report found that one in eight seniors has to choose between buying food and buying medicine. If my friend could comment on how it makes him feel as someone who has always been a fighter for the average person. Here we have senior citizens in our country, one out of eight, after they have worked all their lives, have saved their money, have taken care of their family, having to choose between buying food and buying medicine. I wonder if my friend would comment on that.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Genetically Engineered Food Right-to-Know Act. This legislation requires that all foods containing or produced with genetically engineered material bear a neutral label stating that: ``this product contains a genetically engineered material or was produced with a genetically engineered material.'' The bill adds this labeling requirement to the provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), the Federal Meat Inspection Act, and the Poultry Products Inspection Act which contain the general standards for labeling foods. Recent polls have demonstrated that Americans want to know if they are eating genetically engineered food. A January 1999 Time magazine poll revealed that 81% of respondents wanted genetically engineered food to be labeled. A January 2000 MSNBC poll showed identical results. This pressure has already led some companies not to use genetically engineered materials in their foods. Gerber and Heinz have said they will no longer use genetically engineered material in their baby food. Whole Foods and Wild Oats Supermarkets also have said they will use no genetically engineered material in their own products. Great Britain, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Ireland, Spain, Austria, Italy, Portugal, Greece, New Zealand, and Japan already require genetically engineered food to be labeled. If the U.S. wants to sell its genetically engineered food to these countries, it will have to label the food for foreign consumers. It is only fair that American consumers be given similar information. Why do I feel it's important for consumers to know that their food is genetically engineered? First, we don't know whether genetically engineered food is harmful or whether it is safe. However, scientists have raised concerns about genetically engineered food. These concerns include the risks of increased exposure to allergens, decreased nutritional value, increased toxicity and increased antibiotic resistance. In addition, scientists have raised concerns about the ecological risks associated with genetically engineered food. Some of those risks include the destruction of species, cross pollination that breeds new weeds that are resistant to herbicides, and increases in pesticide use over the long-term. Earlier this year, for example, researchers at Cornell University reported that Monarch butterflies were either killed or developed abnormally when eating milkweed dusted with the pollen of Bt-corn, a genetically engineered food. Second, the Food and Drug Administration does not require pre-market health and safety testing of genetically engineered foods. Therefore, it is only fair that consumers know they are eating products that have not been tested. Third, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Agriculture do not require substantive environmental review of genetically engineered materials under their jurisdiction. My Genetically Engineered Food Right-to-Know Act not only mandates labels, but does something even more important: it authorizes $5 million in grants to conduct studies into the health and environmental risks raised by genetically engineered food. Specifically, it directs the Secretary of HHS to make grants to individuals, organizations and institutions to study risks like increased toxicity, increased allergenicity, negative effects on soil ecology and on the environment in general. What is the extent of genetically engineered crops today? Last year, 98.6 million acres in the U.S. were planted with genetically engineered crops. More than one-third of the U.S. soybean crop and one-quarter of corn were genetically engineered. This represents a 23-fold increase in genetically engineered crop production from just four years ago. And waiting to come into the marketplace are more than 60 different genetically engineered crops--from apples and strawberries to potatoes and tomatoes. Providing consumers with information about the foods they eat is hardly new. For example, I was proud to be the author of the law to provide for the ``dolphin safe'' label on tuna. The label indicated that the tuna was harvested by methods that don't harm dolphins. I was also proud to lead the fight in the Senate to make sure that chicken frozen as solid as a blowing ball could not be labeled fresh. At the time, USDA's position was that frozen chicken could be labeled ``fresh.'' In 1996, I succeeded in amending the Safe Drinking Water Act to require that drinking water providers give their consumers annual reports concerning the quality of their water. Others in Congress led the fight to tell consumers whether their products contain artificial colors or sweeteners, preservatives, additives, and whether they are from concentrate. I supported those labels as well. Food manufacturers also label their products with information that is of little value to consumers. Certain brands of pretzels, for example, bear a label which states that the manufacturer is a ``Member of the Snack Food Association: An International Trade Association.'' I don't think this is information consumers are clamoring for, yet the manufacturer is willing to go through the trouble of putting it on the bag. My legislation builds on the existing food labeling system, and would be simple to implement. It would require that all foods containing or made with genetically engineered foods be labeled with this information: ``this product contains a genetically engineered material or was produced with a genetically engineered material.'' For example, corn flakes made with genetically engineered corn would be a ``product that contains'' genetically engineered material. To take another example, milk from a cow treated with genetically engineered bovine growth hormone would be a product ``produced with'' genetically engineered material. Specifically, my bill requires that food that contains or was produced with genetically engineered material be labeled at each stage of the food production process--from seed company to farmer to manufacturer to retailer. The labeling requirement in my bill, however, does not to apply to drugs or to food sold in restaurants, bakeries, and other similar establishments. Genetically engineered material is defined under the bill as material that ``has been altered at the molecular or cellular level by means that are not possible under natural conditions or processes.'' Food developed through traditional processes such as crossbreeding is not considered to be genetically engineered, and the legislation's labeling requirement would not apply to foods produced in that way. Under the bill, persons need not label food if they obtain a written guaranty from the party from whom they received the food that the food does not contain and was not produced with genetically engineered material. Persons who obtain a valid guaranty are not subject to penalties under the bill if they are later found to have failed to label food that contains genetically engineered material. For example, a farmer who plants genetically engineered corn must label that corn. Each person who then buys and then sells that corn, or food derived from it, will also be required to label it as genetically engineered. Conversely, farmers who obtain a guaranty that the corn they are planting is not genetically engineered may issue a guaranty to purchasers that their corn is not genetically engineered. The purchaser then would not have to label that corn or product made with that corn. If the corn or food is later found to have contained or been produced with genetically engineered material but was not labeled accordingly, the purchaser would not be subject to penalties under the bill. This guaranty system is used today to enforce provisions of existing law concerning the distribution of adulterated or mislabeled foods. The system is much less expensive than a system which would require food to be tested at every phase of the food production process. Failure to label food that contains or was produced with genetically engineered material carries a civil penalty of up to $1,000 amount for each violation. Importantly, the bill provides that if a party fraudulently warrants that a product is not genetically engineered, no party further down the chain of custody may be held liable for mislabeling. This provision is particularly meant to protect small farmers from the possibility that their suppliers would by contract provide that any liability for mislabeling be borne by the farmer regardless of the suppliers' own actions. The bill also provides another protection for farmers. Under the bill, a farmer who plants a non-genetically engineered crop, but whose crop came to contain genetically engineered material from natural causes such as wind carrying pollen from a genetically engineered plant is not subject to penalties under the bill. This is the case so long as the farmer did not intend or did not negligently permit this to occur. And, finally, the bill directs the Secretary of HHS to make grants to study the possible health and environmental risks associated with genetically engineered foods. The bill authorizes $5 million for this purpose. In closing, Mr. President, during the recent negotiations on the Biosafety Protocol, it was the United States' negotiating position that international shipments of seeds, grains and plants that may contain genetically engineered material be labeled accordingly. If the United States took the position that it is appropriate to provide this information to its trading partners, shouldn't we make similar information available to American consumers? I am hopeful that my House and Senate colleagues can act quickly to ensure the passage of my legislation to give American families the right-to-know whether their food contains or was produced with genetically engineered material. I ask that the text of my legislation be printed in the Record. The text of the legislation follows:

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Genetically Engineered Food Right-to-Know Act. This legislation requires that all foods containing or produced with genetically engineered material bear a neutral label stating that: ``this product contains a genetically engineered material or was produced with a genetically engineered material.'' The bill adds this labeling requirement to the provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), the Federal Meat Inspection Act, and the Poultry Products Inspection Act which contain the general standards for labeling foods. Recent polls have demonstrated that Americans want to know if they are eating genetically engineered food. A January 1999 Time magazine poll revealed that 81% of respondents wanted genetically engineered food to be labeled. A January 2000 MSNBC poll showed identical results. This pressure has already led some companies not to use genetically engineered materials in their foods. Gerber and Heinz have said they will no longer use genetically engineered material in their baby food. Whole Foods and Wild Oats Supermarkets also have said they will use no genetically engineered material in their own products. Great Britain, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Ireland, Spain, Austria, Italy, Portugal, Greece, New Zealand, and Japan already require genetically engineered food to be labeled. If the U.S. wants to sell its genetically engineered food to these countries, it will have to label the food for foreign consumers. It is only fair that American consumers be given similar information. Why do I feel it's important for consumers to know that their food is genetically engineered? First, we don't know whether genetically engineered food is harmful or whether it is safe. However, scientists have raised concerns about genetically engineered food. These concerns include the risks of increased exposure to allergens, decreased nutritional value, increased toxicity and increased antibiotic resistance. In addition, scientists have raised concerns about the ecological risks associated with genetically engineered food. Some of those risks include the destruction of species, cross pollination that breeds new weeds that are resistant to herbicides, and increases in pesticide use over the long-term. Earlier this year, for example, researchers at Cornell University reported that Monarch butterflies were either killed or developed abnormally when eating milkweed dusted with the pollen of Bt-corn, a genetically engineered food. Second, the Food and Drug Administration does not require pre-market health and safety testing of genetically engineered foods. Therefore, it is only fair that consumers know they are eating products that have not been tested. Third, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Agriculture do not require substantive environmental review of genetically engineered materials under their jurisdiction. My Genetically Engineered Food Right-to-Know Act not only mandates labels, but does something even more important: it authorizes $5 million in grants to conduct studies into the health and environmental risks raised by genetically engineered food. Specifically, it directs the Secretary of HHS to make grants to individuals, organizations and institutions to study risks like increased toxicity, increased allergenicity, negative effects on soil ecology and on the environment in general. What is the extent of genetically engineered crops today? Last year, 98.6 million acres in the U.S. were planted with genetically engineered crops. More than one-third of the U.S. soybean crop and one-quarter of corn were genetically engineered. This represents a 23-fold increase in genetically engineered crop production from just four years ago. And waiting to come into the marketplace are more than 60 different genetically engineered crops--from apples and strawberries to potatoes and tomatoes. Providing consumers with information about the foods they eat is hardly new. For example, I was proud to be the author of the law to provide for the ``dolphin safe'' label on tuna. The label indicated that the tuna was harvested by methods that don't harm dolphins. I was also proud to lead the fight in the Senate to make sure that chicken frozen as solid as a blowing ball could not be labeled fresh. At the time, USDA's position was that frozen chicken could be labeled ``fresh.'' In 1996, I succeeded in amending the Safe Drinking Water Act to require that drinking water providers give their consumers annual reports concerning the quality of their water. Others in Congress led the fight to tell consumers whether their products contain artificial colors or sweeteners, preservatives, additives, and whether they are from concentrate. I supported those labels as well. Food manufacturers also label their products with information that is of little value to consumers. Certain brands of pretzels, for example, bear a label which states that the manufacturer is a ``Member of the Snack Food Association: An International Trade Association.'' I don't think this is information consumers are clamoring for, yet the manufacturer is willing to go through the trouble of putting it on the bag. My legislation builds on the existing food labeling system, and would be simple to implement. It would require that all foods containing or made with genetically engineered foods be labeled with this information: ``this product contains a genetically engineered material or was produced with a genetically engineered material.'' For example, corn flakes made with genetically engineered corn would be a ``product that contains'' genetically engineered material. To take another example, milk from a cow treated with genetically engineered bovine growth hormone would be a product ``produced with'' genetically engineered material. Specifically, my bill requires that food that contains or was produced with genetically engineered material be labeled at each stage of the food production process--from seed company to farmer to manufacturer to retailer. The labeling requirement in my bill, however, does not to apply to drugs or to food sold in restaurants, bakeries, and other similar establishments. Genetically engineered material is defined under the bill as material that ``has been altered at the molecular or cellular level by means that are not possible under natural conditions or processes.'' Food developed through traditional processes such as crossbreeding is not considered to be genetically engineered, and the legislation's labeling requirement would not apply to foods produced in that way. Under the bill, persons need not label food if they obtain a written guaranty from the party from whom they received the food that the food does not contain and was not produced with genetically engineered material. Persons who obtain a valid guaranty are not subject to penalties under the bill if they are later found to have failed to label food that contains genetically engineered material. For example, a farmer who plants genetically engineered corn must label that corn. Each person who then buys and then sells that corn, or food derived from it, will also be required to label it as genetically engineered. Conversely, farmers who obtain a guaranty that the corn they are planting is not genetically engineered may issue a guaranty to purchasers that their corn is not genetically engineered. The purchaser then would not have to label that corn or product made with that corn. If the corn or food is later found to have contained or been produced with genetically engineered material but was not labeled accordingly, the purchaser would not be subject to penalties under the bill. This guaranty system is used today to enforce provisions of existing law concerning the distribution of adulterated or mislabeled foods. The system is much less expensive than a system which would require food to be tested at every phase of the food production process. Failure to label food that contains or was produced with genetically engineered material carries a civil penalty of up to $1,000 amount for each violation. Importantly, the bill provides that if a party fraudulently warrants that a product is not genetically engineered, no party further down the chain of custody may be held liable for mislabeling. This provision is particularly meant to protect small farmers from the possibility that their suppliers would by contract provide that any liability for mislabeling be borne by the farmer regardless of the suppliers' own actions. The bill also provides another protection for farmers. Under the bill, a farmer who plants a non-genetically engineered crop, but whose crop came to contain genetically engineered material from natural causes such as wind carrying pollen from a genetically engineered plant is not subject to penalties under the bill. This is the case so long as the farmer did not intend or did not negligently permit this to occur. And, finally, the bill directs the Secretary of HHS to make grants to study the possible health and environmental risks associated with genetically engineered foods. The bill authorizes $5 million for this purpose. In closing, Mr. President, during the recent negotiations on the Biosafety Protocol, it was the United States' negotiating position that international shipments of seeds, grains and plants that may contain genetically engineered material be labeled accordingly. If the United States took the position that it is appropriate to provide this information to its trading partners, shouldn't we make similar information available to American consumers? I am hopeful that my House and Senate colleagues can act quickly to ensure the passage of my legislation to give American families the right-to-know whether their food contains or was produced with genetically engineered material. I ask that the text of my legislation be printed in the Record. The text of the legislation follows:

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I strongly oppose S. 1287 and the substitute amendment being offered. This is bad policy and should be rejected by the Senate. Protecting the health and safety of American citizens should be our highest priority in evaluating the disposal of our nuclear waste. In order to do this, all decisions must be made based on science, not politics. This legislation does not do that. Under the cover of a ``compromise'' bill, this legislation is the latest attempt to pre-empt science and legislate the scientific suitability of Yucca Mountain, Nevada, as a high-level nuclear waste dump. Instead of finding a repository that meets our health and safety standards established in law, this legislation attempts to weaken our health and safety standards to meet the repository. I cannot and will not support such an action. For many years we have debated the suitability of a high-level radioactive waste dump site at Yucca Mountain. And for years, I have been down on this Senate floor with my colleagues from Nevada fighting to protect the health and safety of the citizens of Nevada. But I know that Yucca Mountain is not just a Nevada issue, it is a national issue--and more important to me, it seriously and directly affects my State of California. Yucca Mountain is only 17 miles from the California border and the Death Valley National Park. Development of this site has the potential to contaminate California's groundwater and poses unnecessary threats to the health and safety of Californians due to possible transportation accidents from shipping high-level nuclear waste through Inyo, San Bernardino and neighboring California counties. Since its inception as a National Monument in 1933, the federal government has invested more than $600 million in the Death Valley National Park. The Park receives over 1.4 million visitors every year. Furthermore, the communities surrounding the park are economically dependent on tourism. The income generated by the presence of the Park exceeds $125 million per year. The Park has been the most significant element in the sustainable growth of the tourist industry in the Mojave Desert. The Park is committed to sustainable growth of jobs and infrastructure in contrast to the traditional boom-and-dust desert economy. Scientific studies show that a significant part of the regional groundwater aquifer surrounding Yucca Mountain discharges in Death Valley because the valley is down-gradient of areas to the east. If the groundwater at Death Valley is contaminated, that will be the demise of the Park and the surrounding communities. The long-term viability of fish, wildlife and human populations in the area are largely dependent on water from this aquifer. The vast majority of the Park's visitors rely on services and facilities at the park headquarters near Furnace Creek. These facilities are all dependent upon the groundwater aquifer that flows under or near Yucca Mountain. And, unfortunately, there is no alternative water source that can support the visitor facilities and wildlife resources. Water is life in the desert. Water quality must be preserved for the viability of Death Valley National Park and the dependent tourism industry. I hope my colleagues agree that we should not threaten these visitors, this natural treasure, and our huge financial investment with incomplete science and unnecessary actions. The potential loss is just too great. It has been extremely difficult to get the Energy Department to accept California's connection to the site. Although DOE now recognizes Inyo County, California as an Affected Unit of Local Government under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, it did so reluctantly after a successful lawsuit by the county that resulted in DOE granting affected unit status in 1991. Inyo is the only county in California that is now listed. Fortunately, in response to a letter that I sent to the Energy Department, a hearing will be schedule in San Bernardino County to discuss the potential threat of transportation routes through the county. But my State's concerns are not being fully addressed. I ask unanimous consent that my letter to Secretary Richardson and his response be included in the Record. As an Affected Unit of Local Government, Inyo County receives Federal appropriations to monitor the Yucca Mountain project. The primary thrust of Inyo County's monitoring program has been to demonstrate the hydrologic connection between the aquifer underlying Yucca Mountain and the discharge points in Death Valley National Park and surrounding communities. In addition to the groundwater concerns, my State is extremely concerned about the increased transportation of high level radioactive waste that will be shipped through our State as a result of this bill. Despite my objections, the Department of Energy has already started to ship low-level nuclear waste through Inyo County to the Nevada Test Site. Inyo and San Bernardino are especially concerned because of the lack of thorough studies on the transportation routes. The State of California has also been very involved in this issue. The California Energy Commission's comments on the Yucca Mountain Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement express the State's serious concerns over the possible groundwater contamination and the lack of adequate analysis of proper transportation routes. In fact, the Western Governor's Association has repeatedly asked the Energy Department to complete a more detailed and thorough analysis of the transportation routes to Yucca Mountain to no avail. While the legislation that we are debating today is an improvement from bills introduced and debated in the past, it still must be stopped. This legislation would undermine the regulatory framework authorized in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and implemented by the EPA and DOE. The EPA was directed by Congress to establish a radiation exposure standard for Yucca Mountain. The EPA is in the process of completing that requirement. The draft standards were issued last August and the EPA is currently considering all comments on the proposal. The draft standard includes a separate--and much needed--groundwater standard for the repository that must meet the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act. The legislation we are discussing today prevents the Clinton Administration from acting in a timely manner to protect public health. However, once this Administration leaves office, the EPA standards could move forward. Where is the science in that? This provision flies in the face of science and the fundamental principle of protecting public health and safety first and foremost. I understand that a 1995 study by the Department of Energy showed that the radiation at Yucca Mountain would be much higher than allowed under current regulations. In fact, the DOE study finds that maximum doses at the site would be 50 rem per year. If, like me, you are not a scientist, let me put that number into perspective for you. That is like having approximately 5,000 chest x- rays annually. Furthermore, it is about 2000 times higher than what the public is currently permitted to receive under an operating powerplant under current EPA regulations. That dose is sufficient to produce approximately 100 percent probability of dying of cancer under NRC and DOE current risk estimates. Virtually everyone exposed to that dose would die of cancer. So rather than go back and try to design a better repository to meet the standards, we are on this floor to change the standards to meet the repository. Finally, the one provision in S. 1287 that most people could agree on was stripped from this substitute amendment. That provision would have allowed the Energy Secretary to take title to the waste that is currently being stored on-site in order to resolve the liability issue. The alleged reason for moving this legislation was to deal with the liability issue that was created by a successful lawsuit from the utilities against the Energy Department. The utilities claimed that the Energy Department was not meeting its obligations under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act to store this waste. And the utilities won. Senator Murkowski and Secretary Richardson seemed to agree that the best way to resolve this issue was to have the Energy Department take title to the waste at the utilities. That was the reason for moving a bill. Now, that provision is gone, and therefore the reason to move this bill is gone. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote no on this unnecessary legislation. I ask unanimous consent that correspondence in regard to this bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I wonder if my leader, Senator Daschle, will engage in just a bit more of a colloquy at this point?

Mrs. BOXER. I am done with my remarks. I want to get my friend to evoke for us how hard it was to get to this particular point in which we find ourselves.

Mrs. BOXER. I have been on budget committees for years, 6 years in the House and now, since I came to the Senate, it is a total of 13 years. This is a remarkable moment in history, as my friend has pointed out. I wanted to talk to him about why we are where we are. It has been very difficult for quite a while, back to the days of the burgeoning deficits that started under President Reagan and escalated under President Bush and only were brought under control with the Clinton-Gore team. Finally, we now can do something for the American people, do something they need. Now we can do something they need in education. We talked about Senator Murray's push to reduce class size. We see in this budget the ability to do that. We see in this budget $1 billion for afterschool care, for which we have struggled mightily, which means millions of kids are going to have that. We see the targeted tax breaks. So my question to my friend is, we are at this point and we are at this point for a reason. It was hard to get here. Fiscal responsibility does bring rewards. We tell that to our children: Save for the time you need to spend; be careful with your resources. We have done that. I wonder if my friend can recall the key vote, back in 1993, when, without one Republican vote, we were able to get through a budget which has led to these kinds of surpluses and the surpluses, in turn, are giving us the ability to pay down the debt, save Social Security, save Medicare, and make these targeted tax cuts and investments? Could he recall for us what it was like to get that through?

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, last month, the United States held the rotating presidency of the U.N. Security Council. And something historic happened. Under the leadership of Ambassador Holbrooke and Vice President Gore, the Security Council for the first time ever discussed an international health issue. The issue was the spread of AIDS, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa. In raising the profile of this issue--in putting it before the U.N. Security Council--there was a recognition that the AIDS crisis is a security threat--a threat to the peace, stability, and prosperity of nations around the world. Nowhere is that more true than in sub-Saharan Africa, where the United Nations has said that AIDS is ``the worst infectious disease catastrophe since the bubonic plague.'' Since the beginning of the HIV/AIDS epidemic, 13.7 million people in sub-Saharan Africa have died of AIDS. That is 84 percent of all the people in the world who have died of AIDS since the beginning of the epidemic. Last year, two-thirds of all new cases of HIV/AIDS were in sub-Saharan Africa. And of all the people in the world living with HIV/ AIDS, 69 percent of them live in sub-Saharan Africa. Mr. President, this is not just a matter of more deaths and more cases because there are more people. Of adults in sub-Saharan Africa who are aged 15-49, eight percent of them have HIV/AIDS. Percentages from specific countries are even more dramatic. In Zimbabwe, it is estimated that 26 percent of all adults aged 15-49 are living with the disease. In Botswana, it is 25 percent, and in Namibia, it is 20 percent. Unlike any other area of the world, the HIV/AIDS epidemic in sub- Saharan Africa is predominately a woman's disease. A majority of infected adults--55 percent to be exact--are women. This creates ripple effects. When women get the disease, they often pass it along to their unborn babies. As a result, about 10 percent of the HIV/AIDS cases in sub-Saharan Africa are children. More dramatically, when women die, their children often become orphans. By the end of this year, the HIV/AIDS epidemic will be the reason that over 10 million children in sub-Saharan Africa are orphans. How many children is that? There are about 10 million people 18 years old and younger in California. Imagine if every single one of them was an orphan. That is what we are talking about in sub-Saharan Africa. Ten million children. Even worse, according to those who are working on this issue in Africa, the number of children orphaned there because of HIV/AIDS could double, triple, or even quadruple in the next decade. I have mentioned, Mr. President, a lot of statistics, a lot of numbers. but behind each number there is a face. A face of a man living with HIV; a face of a woman dying of AIDS; a face of an orphan with no family and no place to go. In Sub-Saharan Africa, there are faces upon faces upon faces. This is a global tragedy, a global catastrophe, a global emergency. It requires a global response. And the United States must lead the way. So today, I am introducing, along with my colleague on the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Gordon Smith, the Global AIDS Prevention Act--the GAP Act. It calls on the United States Agency for International Development--USAID--to make HIV/AIDS a priority in the foreign assistance program and to undertake a comprehensive, coordinated effort to combat HIV/AIDS. That effort must include primary prevention and education; voluntary testing and counseling; providing medications to prevent the transmission of HIV/AIDS from mother to child; and care for those living with HIV/AIDS. To accomplish this, the GAP Act would increase funding for USAID's international HIV/AIDS effort. Over five years, the bill would authorize $2 billion for the fight against AIDS, and at least $1 billion of that is dedicated to the problem in sub-Saharan Africa. I want to commend the work done so far by USAID. This year, the Agency will spend $200 million to fight HIV/AIDS abroad. Unfortunately, this is the first time in six years that there has been an increase in the funding for this important effort. And it is still far short of what is needed. It is time to close the gap. Passing the GAP Act would be a great step forward. Now, Mr. President, I have talked about the problem in sub-Saharan Africa. That is where the problem is the worst and where the need is most urgent. It has also been the focus of most of the public attention in the last few months. But, be warned. We must not fool ourselves into thinking that sub- Saharan Africa is the only place with a problem. In terms of raw numbers, India has more people living with HIV/AIDS than any other nation in the world. And experts tell us that in the near future, the problem may actually grow faster in Southeast Asia than in Africa. The GAP Act recognizes the need to be flexible. As I mentioned, it dedicates at least 50 percent of the funding to sub-Saharan Africa. USAID is actually spending about 65 percent of its AIDS dollars in that region now. This bill will continue to allow USAID to spend that higher percentage, but it will also provide the Agency with the flexibility to address the problem elsewhere in the world. As I mentioned, Mr. President, I am joined in this effort by Senator Gordon Smith. He and I worked together last summer in introducing a bill to fight the international tuberculosis problem. I am pleased and honored to join with him again in introducing bipartisan legislation to address an urgent international health problem. Mr. President, in the United States, When the epidemic first hit two decides ago, too many people in positions to make a difference ran inside, locked the doors, closed the curtains, and just hoped it would go away. The victims were blamed instead of helped. Those at risk were ridiculed instead of educated. Those who were dying were shunned instead of cared for. We did not begin to make progress against HIV/AIDS in this country until we discussed the problem in the light of day and until we made a serious investment in education, prevention, treatment, care, and research. Progress will not be made in Africa or anywhere else in the world unless we do the same. Now is not the time to pretend the problem does not exist or that it does not matter to us. Now is the time to act. The GAP Act would help to close the gap between what we need to fight this disease and what we are now spending. The GAP Act would help to close the GAP between the developed and the developing world in dealing with this epidemic. The GAP Act would help to close the gap between our words and our actions. I ask my colleagues to close these gaps by cosponsoring the GAP Act. Finally, I ask that a copy of the bill and a letter of endorsement from Family Health International be inserted in the Record. The material follows:

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I was informed that the vote on the Greenspan nomination would be at 6 p.m. on Wednesday, so I had rearranged my schedule to return to my State. As I am unable to be present for the 10:30 a.m. Thursday vote, I ask that the Record show that if I were present to vote, I would vote in favor of confirming Alan Greenspan for another term as Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President. I have spoken in this Chamber before about the exemplary life of Elizabeth Glaser and the work of the Pediatric AIDS Foundation, which bears her name. I rise today to again speak about Elizabeth and her remarkable work and life. In 1986, Elizabeth and her husband, Paul, discovered that she and her two children were infected with HIV as a result of a blood transfusion following a difficult childbirth. In 1988, following the death of their daughter, Ariel, to AIDS she founded a foundation to raise money for scientific research for pediatric AIDS. At the time there was little coordinated research focused on the effect of this disease on children or pharmaceutical testing of protocols for pediatric AIDS. In 1994, Elizabeth succumbed to this terrible disease after a long and courageous battle. Today, eleven years after its founding, the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation has raised more than $85 million in support of AIDS research. This has lead to a new and greater understanding of HIV/AIDS and its effects on children. Among the more exciting and promising breakthroughs this research has provided is the drug Nevirapine. Last year, a study in Uganda showed that Nevirapine could prevent almost half of HIV transmissions from mothers to infants--and at a fraction of the cost of other, less effective, treatments. Mr. President, some 1,800 children are infected with HIV each day. The United Nations reports that 33.6 million people are infected with HIV or have developed AIDS; more than two-thirds of these people live in Sub-Saharan Africa. As the nature and emographis of HIV/AIDS evolves, the work of groups like the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation is a pioneer in its field, richly deserving of the support and attention it receives. Elizabeth Glaser remans a source of strength and inspiration to all of us. And her good works continue to reap benefits for countless thousands of people.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to honor one of the finest mayors to serve in California. My state, particularly my constituents in Sacramento lost a great Californian this fall with the passing of Sacramento Mayor Joe Serna. My bill will name the new Federal Courthouse at 501 I Street the ``Joe Serna, Jr. United States Courthouse and Federal Building'' in honor of his contributions to Sacramento and the working men and women of California. Joe Serna was a man of great vision, courage, energy, warmth, and humor. He was also a living embodiment of the American Dream: a first- generation American who helped to reshape the capital of our nation's largest state. Mayor Serna was born in 1939, the son of Mexican immigrants. As the oldest of four children, Joe grew up in a bunkhouse and worked with his family in the beet fields around Lodi. Mayor Serna never forgot his roots. After attending Sacramento City College and graduating from California State University, Sacramento, he served in the Peace Corps and went to work for the United Farm Workers, where Cesar Chavez became his mentor and role model. After serving on the city's redevelopment agency in the 1970s, Mayor Serna was elected to the Council himself in 1981. He was elected mayor in 1992 and re-elected in 1996, winning both races by wide margins. Throughout his terms in office, he continued to work as a professor of government and ethnic studies at his alma mater, Cal State Sacramento. Mayor Serna virtually rebuilt the city of Sacramento. He forged public-private partnerships to redevelop the downtown, revitalize the neighborhoods, and reform the public school system. He presided over an urban renaissance that transformed Sacramento into a dynamic modern metropolis. The new Sacramento Federal Building is a visible reminder of the redevelopment of Sacramento. Naming this building after Mayor Serna would be a fitting tribute. Mayor Serna died as he lived: with great strength and dignity. Last month, as he publicly discussed his impending death from cancer, he said, ``I was supposed to live and die as a farm worker, not as a mayor and a college professor. I have everything to be thankful for. I have the people to thank for allowing me to be their mayor. I have society to thank for the opportunity it has given me.'' Mr. President, it is we who are thankful today for having had such a man serve the people of California, and I ask my colleagues to support this legislation to honor the legacy of Joe Serna, Jr. Mr. President, I ask that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. The bill follows:

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am submitting a resolution on the Convention to Eliminate All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. For those unfamiliar with this issue, the Treaty, known by its acronym CEDAW, is the most comprehensive and detailed international treaty to date that addresses the rights of women. The United States was an active participant in drafting this treaty. It was approved by the General Assembly in 1979. President Carter signed the treaty on behalf of the United States. To date, 165 nations have ratified or acceded to the treaty. The United States joins the likes of Afghanistan, North Korea and Iran as the few nations who have decided not to become state parties to this treaty. The Convention requires that nations take measures to eliminate discrimination against women. Discrimination is defined as ``any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex which has the effect of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment, or exercise by women, irrespective of their marital status.'' The treaty addresses ``human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil, or any other field.'' Let me be clear, this treaty covers the most basic rights for women. For example, Article 5 recognizes the common responsibility of men and women for raising children. Article 6 requires measures to suppress all forms of traffic in women and exploitation of prostitution of women. Articles 7 and 8 would ensure that women have the right to vote, run for office, and represent their countries in international activities. Article 10 calls for the elimination of discrimination in the field of education. Article 11 gives women the right to work and free choice of employment. Article 12 eliminates discrimination in the delivery of health care services. This treaty covers other areas of discrimination as well, but as you can tell by the few Articles I have described, this treaty is extremely important to the rights of women throughout the world. And, ratification of this treaty will strengthen our capability to urge other nations to promote these rights. In 1994 the Senate Foreign Relations overwhelmingly supported this treaty approving the resolution of ratification by a vote of 13 to 5. Unfortunately, time ran out in the 103rd Congress before the full Senate had the opportunity to consider the treaty. Today, I am offering amendment stating that it is the Sense of the Senate that the Foreign Relations Committee should once again hold hearings on CEDAW. It also states the Senate should take action on the treaty prior to March 8, 2000--International Women's Day. The United States needs to show that it is the world leader on promoting human rights and that includes the rights of women throughout the world. I urge my colleagues to join us in cosponsoring this resolution.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, the two bills we passed today--the tax extenders bill and the Omnibus Appropriations Act--like this entire session of Congress, can be summarized by four words: the good, the bad, the missing, and the undone. Let me begin with the good, because we have achieved victories on several important Democratic priorities. Funding for after-school programs was more than doubled. As a result, there will be spaces for 675,000 young people. In another priority of mine, the days of the sweet deal for the big oil companies will be over next March 15. At that time, the Interior Department will finally be allowed to issue a regulation to ensure that oil companies pay their fair share of oil royalties to the federal government when they drill on federal land, ending the $66 million annual loss to the taxpayers. I was also pleased to see a 42 percent increase in funding for the lands program, known as the Lands Legacy Initiative. Most of this money will be used to acquire lands and historical sites so that they can be preserved for future generations. There are other good things as part of the budget agreement: funding to reduce elementary school class sizes; putting 6600 cops on the streets and in the schools; paying the arrears the United States owes to the United Nations; debt relief for developing countries; full funding for the Middle East Peace Agreement; a $2.3 billion increase in funding for the National Institutes of Health; correcting problems with Medicare funding that were part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, so that we ensure seniors continue to have access to health care, particularly home health care and nursing home care; a $108 million increase in funding for nutrition assistance for pregnant women and infants; extension of some important tax credits, including the Research and Experimentation Tax Credit, employer-provided educational assistance, and trade adjustment assistance; and most of the anti- environmental riders were stripped out of the bill or were significantly weakened. But, Mr. President, despite these good things, I am voting against the bill because of the bad things as well as the things that are missing. First, let me comment on the process. If the Republican controlled Congress had done its work and passed the appropriations bills by October 1, which is what is supposed to happen, we would not have needed these protracted and secretive negotiations that gave undue power to just a handful of people. As my colleague from Nebraska said, this whole process turned government ``of the people, by the people, and for the people'' into ``government of and by four people''. I want to mention three specific provisions of this bill that I oppose. First, the funding for international family planning is inadequate. We have had level funding for this program for four years now. And on top of that, the omnibus appropriations bill reinstates the so-called Mexico City policy that prevents organizations from using their own, privately-raised money to provide abortion services or to lobby against draconian abortion laws. Under the provisions of this bill, the President could waive this restriction, but if he does, the funding would be cut $12.5 billion, which could deny contraception to over 40,000 women for an entire year. I was also extremely dismayed to find in this bill a provision that would allow pharmacists to deny women in federal health plans prescriptions for contraceptive drugs, if they claim a sort of ``conscientious objector'' status. This is an outrageous assault on the right of women to receive the full range of health benefits. Also, this bill contains an absolutely unnecessary--and potentially dangerous--across the board spending cut. This cut will affect funding for education and health care and medical research and veterans. It is a silly way to do business, and it is unnecessary. Congress should have done its job and made the decisions about what is important and what is not. There are also a lot of holes in this legislation, a lot of things missing. These are things that were in there at one point or on the table for discussion, but for some reason were taken out. I am talking about the lack of hate crimes legislation, which passed the Senate. I am talking about my amendment, which also passed the Senate unanimously, to ban the sale of guns to people who are intoxicated. There is once again no long-term, large-scale commitment to repair America's schools. There is no prescription drug benefit under Medicare, so that millions of senior citizens will not have to make a choice between medicine and food. There is not enough money for after- school programs. And the rural loan guarantee program for satellite TV--something that is crucial to rural communities around the country-- was taken out of the bill at the request of one senator. In the category of the undone, this Congress will go home for the year without having acted on several issues of enormous importance to all Americans--things that the people have said over and over again they want us to do. This includes: a real patients bill of rights, common sense gun control, campaign finance reform, and an increase in the minimum wage. Some will say that we could not do these things because we did not have the money. Let me point out that if this Republican-controlled Congress had not insisted on increasing the defense budget by about $8 billion more than the President said we needed, then we would have had plenty of money to pay for both the well-deserved pay raise for our servicemen and women and the priorities I have just talked about. So, Mr. President, I regret that this bill was not all it could have been and that this Congress did not accomplish all that it should have. But, I look forward to the next session in the hope that we finally address the priorities of the American people.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I would like to speak about H.R. 3419, the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act, which the Senate approved today. I commend Senator McCain, chairman of the Commerce Commitee, for holding hearings on this issue. These hearings, as well as reports from the Department of Transportation's Inspector General, have shown how critical it is for us all to pay closer attention to the safety problems on our highways. In 1998, 5,374 people were killed in truck-related crashes and over 127,000 were injured. Although trucks account for only 3 percent of registered vehicles, they are involved in 9 percent of fatal crashes, and 12 percent of all highway-related deaths. This is simply unacceptable, and we must do all we can to reduce fatalities and injuries on our highways. Recently, I met with one of my constituents, Cynthia Cozzolino, who lost her brother, sister-in-law, young nephew, and niece in a horrible truck-related crash last August. This terrible tragedy could have been prevented if we made safety a higher priority, particularly truck inspection. Worn straps may have contributed to a truck spilling its load of concrete piping instantaneously killing this young family riding in their van behind the truck. Highway truck traffic is an increasing part of our economy. California highway trucks carry 57 billion tons per mile, second only to Texas. In Southern California, the growing goods movement from ports and airports will push the current regional truck volume up by 40 percent over the next 20 years. One section of Interstate 15 is likely to see almost 13,000 truck trips a day. That is why we must do all we can to strengthen our commitment to safety on our highways. I am encouraged by certain key features of H.R. 3419. By establishing a separate Motor Carrier Safety Administration, at long last we are making safety a priority. The bill directs the Secretary of Transportation to develp a long term strategy for improving commercial motor vehicle, operator and carrier safety. It also directs the Secretary to implement safety improvement recommendations from the Inspector General, and it calls for the development of staffing standards for motor carrier safety inspectors at our international border areas, an important element for California. In addition, strengthening the Commercial Driver License regulations by explicitly directing the disqualification of any commercial driver found to have caused a death because of negligent or criminal operation of a truck or bus and establishing stern penalties for foreign carriers who operate illegally beyond the current southern border commercial zone, are key improvements. Disqualifying these carriers on the spot will send a strong deterrent measure to any foreign trucking or bus companies who think that they can violate current motor carrier laws and regulations with impunity. However, I am concerned that H.R. 3419 is not stronger in terms of potential conflict of interest in the research conducted for this new administration. According to testimony before the Surface Transportation Subcommittee, in 1996, the Office of Motor Carriers (OMC) awarded more than $8 million to the trucking industry and its consultants to perform research on various issues, including driver fatigue and graduated licensing. I understand that such research can form the basis for future rulemakings governing the trucking industry. The new Motor Carrier Safety Administration must maintain a high degree of integrity and independence. I supported a provision that specifically forbids any research for rulemaking and other programs that is conducted by any entity with a vested economic interest in its outcome, and to forbid any individual who serves in a senior position within the new motor carrier agency from maintaining any affiliation with the trucking industry. H.R. 3419 includes a provision that directs the new motor carrier administrator to comply with the current Federal regulations regarding conflict of interest, and it also directs the administrator to conduct a study to determine whether compliance with these regulations is sufficient to avoid conflicts of interest. I look forward to the results of that study as well as any swift action by Congress to correct this problem if the study finds additional protection for conflicts of interest is warranted. H.R. 3419 would establish a separate administration for Motor Carrier Safety. I would prefer to transfer the OMC from the Federal Highway Administration to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and avoid the creation of a separate modal administration. NHTSA already issues regulations for newly manufactured trucks, and in truck-car crashes 98 percent of the deaths are suffered by the passenger vehicle occupants. Nevertheless, today we have taken an important step toward building greater confidence in highway safety. The creation of a new administration dedicated to safety is a new direction that I hope will lead to improved safety for the traveling public.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to honor one of the finest mayors to serve in California. My state, particularly my constituents in Sacramento lost a great Californian this fall with the passing of Sacramento Mayor Joe Serna. My bill will name the new Federal Courthouse at 501 I Street the ``Joe Serna, Jr. United States Courthouse and Federal Building'' in honor of his contributions to Sacramento and the working men and women of California. Joe Serna was a man of great vision, courage, energy, warmth, and humor. He was also a living embodiment of the American Dream: a first- generation American who helped to reshape the capital of our nation's largest state. Mayor Serna was born in 1939, the son of Mexican immigrants. As the oldest of four children, Joe grew up in a bunkhouse and worked with his family in the beet fields around Lodi. Mayor Serna never forgot his roots. After attending Sacramento City College and graduating from California State University, Sacramento, he served in the Peace Corps and went to work for the United Farm Workers, where Cesar Chavez became his mentor and role model. After serving on the city's redevelopment agency in the 1970s, Mayor Serna was elected to the Council himself in 1981. He was elected mayor in 1992 and re-elected in 1996, winning both races by wide margins. Throughout his terms in office, he continued to work as a professor of government and ethnic studies at his alma mater, Cal State Sacramento. Mayor Serna virtually rebuilt the city of Sacramento. He forged public-private partnerships to redevelop the downtown, revitalize the neighborhoods, and reform the public school system. He presided over an urban renaissance that transformed Sacramento into a dynamic modern metropolis. The new Sacramento Federal Building is a visible reminder of the redevelopment of Sacramento. Naming this building after Mayor Serna would be a fitting tribute. Mayor Serna died as he lived: with great strength and dignity. Last month, as he publicly discussed his impending death from cancer, he said, ``I was supposed to live and die as a farm worker, not as a mayor and a college professor. I have everything to be thankful for. I have the people to thank for allowing me to be their mayor. I have society to thank for the opportunity it has given me.'' Mr. President, it is we who are thankful today for having had such a man serve the people of California, and I ask my colleagues to support this legislation to honor the legacy of Joe Serna, Jr. Mr. President, I ask that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. The bill follows:

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to correct a weakness in the Medicare law for those who develop a terminal illness. Under current law, individuals under age 65 who are unable to work because of a disability can qualify for Medicare after a two-year waiting period. That is, two years after developing a disability, individuals can start to receive Medicare benefits to help pay for their health care. There are reasons for this two-year waiting period, and this legislation would not change that. What I am concerned about, Mr. President, is the fact that thousands of individuals develop a disability that is terminal within two years. I am talking about people with cancer, people with AIDS, people with Lou Gehrig's Disease, to name to just a few examples. In some cases, when these individuals are diagnosed and can no longer work, they have less than two years to live. That means they will die before the end of the waiting period, before they become eligible for Medicare, before they qualify to receive health care benefits. That is not right and not fair. The Medicare for Individuals with Terminal Illness Act would change this. My bill would say that for people whose doctors expect them to live less than two years because of their disability or illness, there will be no waiting period. They would qualify for Medicare immediately and could get the health care they need. Mr. President, to date, 10 individuals and 44 organizations--groups involved with AIDS, cerebral palsy, Alzheimer's Disease, hospice care, and diabetes, among others--have endorsed this legislation. Mr. President, I encourage my colleagues to look at this list of supporters, look at the bill, and join me in correcting a problem that is denying health care benefits to thousands of Americans. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a list of endorsements be printed in the Record.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to correct a weakness in the Medicare law for those who develop a terminal illness. Under current law, individuals under age 65 who are unable to work because of a disability can qualify for Medicare after a two-year waiting period. That is, two years after developing a disability, individuals can start to receive Medicare benefits to help pay for their health care. There are reasons for this two-year waiting period, and this legislation would not change that. What I am concerned about, Mr. President, is the fact that thousands of individuals develop a disability that is terminal within two years. I am talking about people with cancer, people with AIDS, people with Lou Gehrig's Disease, to name to just a few examples. In some cases, when these individuals are diagnosed and can no longer work, they have less than two years to live. That means they will die before the end of the waiting period, before they become eligible for Medicare, before they qualify to receive health care benefits. That is not right and not fair. The Medicare for Individuals with Terminal Illness Act would change this. My bill would say that for people whose doctors expect them to live less than two years because of their disability or illness, there will be no waiting period. They would qualify for Medicare immediately and could get the health care they need. Mr. President, to date, 10 individuals and 44 organizations--groups involved with AIDS, cerebral palsy, Alzheimer's Disease, hospice care, and diabetes, among others--have endorsed this legislation. Mr. President, I encourage my colleagues to look at this list of supporters, look at the bill, and join me in correcting a problem that is denying health care benefits to thousands of Americans. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a list of endorsements be printed in the Record.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mrs. BOXER. The Senator from New Mexico said he wasn't going to yell. He got a little close to it. But when I hear the yells on that side of the aisle, it is usually related to their passion for helping the wealthiest among us. The Senator from New Mexico says that the Democrats are living in the past because we want to increase the minimum wage. Well, I have news for the Senator from New Mexico. Compassion for the poorest in our society, those at the bottom rung of the ladder, that is a timeless value; that is a moral value; that is a religious value; that is a value we ought to be proud to have around here. That is not living in the past. Come to Los Angeles, I say to my friend from New Mexico, or look around your big cities. What you will notice is that the people who are living on the minimum wage are adults. We know that to be the fact. A majority of minimum-wage workers are adults--70 percent of them. In the Democratic proposal, out of those who will benefit from this modest increase, 60 percent of them are women. So if you want to say that we are living in the past, you can say it all you want. But it isn't true. We saw in September a very chilling story in the L.A. Times about the working poor in Southern California. The National Low-Income Housing Coalition shows that given the high cost of a two-bedroom apartment in L.A., a minimum-wage earner must work 112 hours per week in order to make ends meet. In San Francisco, it is even worse. A person would have to work 174 hours at minimum wage in order to pay their bills. According to a recent study of the Nation's food banks, 40 percent of all households seeking emergency food aid had at least one member who was working. That is up from 23 percent in 1994. Low-paying jobs, I say to my friend from New Mexico, are the most frequently cited cause of hunger today, according to this well- documented L.A. Times story. The L.A. Times, by the way, is now owned by Republicans. So this isn't a question of yesterday, I say to my friend. It is a question of living today. They have made the same arguments every time we raised the minimum wage. The last time they said it would bring the economy down. We have never seen such a strong economy. If the people at the bottom rung are left behind, it is morally wrong and it is economically wrong. It makes no sense. Those are the folks who go out and spend what they earn and they definitely stimulate the economy. So for anybody to say you are living in the past if you support a minimum-wage increase, they don't know what is going on today. I say that from my heart. I have respect for the Senator from New Mexico, but I think it is insulting to say one lives in the past for wanting to fight for those at the bottom rung of the economic ladder--those women and those children who are living in poverty. I thank the Chair.

Mrs. BOXER. I thank my colleague for yielding. I say to the Senator from Massachusetts how much I appreciate him pushing this forward and how important it is to all of our States. I bring out an article that ran in the paper yesterday and today about the status of children in my home State of California, by far the largest State. I want my friend to respond to these numbers because they really say it. This is what it says: Despite a booming economy that has seen a tide of prosperity wash over California in recent years, nearly 1 in 4 children under 18 in the Golden State lives in poverty. . . . Although the annual ``California Report Card 1999'' laments that so many children live in poverty, it paints an especially bleak portrait of a child's first four years of life. Lois Salisbury, president of Children Now, says: Among all of California's children, our littlest ones . . . face the most stressful conditions of all. . . . At a time when a child's sense of self and security is influenced most powerfully, California deals them a [terrible] hand. I say to my friend, this issue he is raising is so critical. We all say how much we care about the children. Every one of us has made that speech. Today the rubber meets the road. If you care about children, you have to make sure their parents can support them. My last point is, and I will yield for the answer, I wonder if my friend has seen the New York Times editorial that says: The Senate will vote today on a Republican-sponsored amendment to raise the minimum wage and they say sadly the Republicans are not content to do this good deed and go home. They have loaded the amendment with tax cuts that are fiscally damaging and cynically focused on wealthy workers. Almost all of the Republican tax cuts go to the wealthy. One of the economists who looked at this said: It would encourage the reduction of contributions made by employers to the pensions of the lowest paid workers. Can my friend comment on the importance of this proposal to children and also this cynical proposal that our colleagues on the other side are presenting?

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, a great American died this past weekend: Mayor Joe Serna Jr. of Sacramento, California. Mayor Serna was much beloved by his constituents, family, and friends. We will all miss him terribly. Joe Serna and I became friends while working closely together on gun control, education, and other issues of mutual concern. He was a man of great vision, courage, energy, warmth, and humor. He was also a living embodiment of the American Dream: a first- generation American who helped to reshape the capital of our Nation's largest state. Joe Serna Jr. was born in 1939, the son of Mexican immigrants. As the oldest of four children, Joe grew up in a bunkhouse and worked with his family in the beet fields around Lodi. Joe never forgot his roots. After attending Sacramento City College and graduating from California State University, Sacramento, he served in the Peace Corps and went to work for the United Farm Workers, where Cesar Chavez became his mentor and role model. In 1969, Joe managed the successful campaign of Manuel Ferrales for the Sacramento City Council. After serving on the city's redevelopment agency in the 1970s, Joe was elected to the Council himself in 1981. He was elected mayor in 1992 and re-elected in 1996, winning both races by wide margins. Throughout his terms in office, he continued to work as a professor of government and ethnic studies at his alma mater, Cal State Sacramento. Mayor Serna virtually rebuilt the city of Sacramento. He forged public-private partnerships to redevelop the downtown, revitalize the neighborhoods, and reform the public school system. He presided over an urban renaissance that transformed Sacramento into a dynamic modern metropolis. Joe Serna died as he lived: with great strength and dignity. Last month, as he publicly discussed his impending death from cancer, he said, ``I was supposed to live and die as a farmworker, not as a mayor and a college professor. I have everything to be thankful for. I have the people to thank for allowing me to be their mayor. I have society to thank for the opportunity it has given me.'' Mr. President, it is we who are thankful today for having had such a man serve the people of California.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I also have received assurances from the South Korean Ambassador, Dr. Lee Hong-koo, that his government will not interfere with the pending court case and expresses hope that legal proceedings will be conducted as quickly as possible. I ask unanimous consent that a letter to me dated November 5, 1999 from Ambassador Lee be printed in the Record.