Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I take to the floor to talk about where we are in the homeland security bill, and to call attention to some special interest provisions added to this bill in the hope that the American people will take a look at what is happening to their country. As Senator Voinovich has stated, Osama bin Laden is still alive. While we cannot be positive of that, it appears that he is still alive. Certainly, al-Qaida is alive and certainly al-Qaida is working full time to hurt us--meaning the American people. That we know. The world is a terribly dangerous place. Taking care of America is crucial. That is why I was so stunned and upset when the President refused to spend $5.1 billion that this Congress gave him for homeland security to ensure that our ports are more secure, to ensure that our nuclear power plants are safe, to ensure that our chemical plants are safe, to ensure that our airports are safer, and to speed up development of necessary vaccines. I was stunned when the President did what he did. I was also stunned when he opposed the idea of making the Homeland Security Department a Cabinet position. Stunned. Only after Senator Lieberman and his committee had voted out a bill--at least the Committee Democrats did--did the President decided he wanted to support this concept. We know one thing about September 11th. We know that the CIA and the FBI were not speaking to each other. We know that they were not communicating with each other. And yet there is not one thing in this homeland security bill that addresses that issue. The homeland security bill tinkers around the edges with creating new ways for the intelligence community to let the Homeland Security Director know what is happening. But we do not get to the heart of that cultural problem that exists between these agencies. That is amazing to me, since we know one thing--that there was a breakdown in communication between these two agencies. I also happen to believe that massive reorganization is generally an invitation to chaos and more bureaucracy. I began my political career a long time ago in a small county of about 200,000 people. We found that when you combine agencies in the name of trying to be efficient, oftentimes you have less accountability. That is what is happening here--combining all of these agencies, with some 170,000 people, creating all kinds of subheads, and so on and so forth. So I am very worried. I hope to be proven wrong because this bill will pass, but I am worried that there will be less accountability rather than more. That is why I supported the Byrd amendment, way back when we started this debate, which would create a Cabinet level Homeland Security Director and a streamlined Homeland Security Department, with people who would be held accountable, and with a way for the Congress to continue to play a role as we develop this very important agency. I thought that would have been the way to go. I was proud to stand with Robert Byrd on his amendment. I happen to believe in my heart of hearts that the President's change of heart about the need for a homeland security department had a lot to do with the fact that he is very interested in stripping away worker protections. I have to believe that deep in my heart. Why do I say that? Because of his actions. Of the 170,000 people in the new Department, only 40,000 of them have worker protection, that is all. There are people at the bottom of the barrel, in terms of pay; the secretaries, the janitors, the file clerks. I don't understand--and I have said this before on the floor of the Senate--why a President who calls himself ``compassionate'' would want to take away the most minimum of rights from such people, endanger their level of health care. I don't understand why this President would have held up this bill all this time for that. Now there is a compromise. I am glad a few more protections are added. That is good. But I don't know how a person who says he is compassionate could go after people who have the most minimal job protections. They don't have the right to strike. No Federal employee has the right to strike. They can scarcely collectively bargain given the provisions of this bill. That, to me, is a sour note in this debate and continues to weigh on my heart--that maybe this President changed his mind, in part, because of this ``opportunity'' to take after these workers. It is really a sad thing to me. If we look at the economy today--and I know my colleague from West Virginia gets this because he talks to me about it all the time--it is a tough economy we have. The fact is, in the last couple of years, as the President came into power, we have seen a tremendous loss of private sector jobs. More jobs have been lost than at any time in 50 years. We know what is happening to people's retirement security because of the stock market, with the worst performance in more than 50 years. People are frightened. So why do you go after 40,000 workers and give them insecurity? We heard yesterday that the President is going to move more than 800,000 jobs into the private sector from the Federal Government--more than 800,000 jobs. At a time when people are feeling insecurity, he is going to throw them out into the marketplace where they will have very little security. There is something missing here that is upsetting to me. So here we are. In my opinion, we have a bad choice to make when we finally vote on homeland security. I will make what I consider to be the best of that bad choice--a choice between no homeland security bill and one that I believe was thrown together in a way that is going to make it less accountable and is going to hit a lot of bumps in the road. Taking FEMA and putting it in there--what will happen when we have an earthquake in California? What is going to happen with the Coast Guard when they have to do search and rescue? These are troubling questions to me. We will have that choice to make. That is life. We often don't have great choices here, and we will make that decision. But one thing I know I am going to vote for with great pride on Monday is the Daschle- Lieberman amendment. I see a couple of colleagues on the floor who care about these issues, and I want to recognize my friend from Michigan, who called us together today to explore the ramifications of a particular rider that was added in the dead of night. I will explain it, and I hope she will engage me in a bit of a colloquy. In the dead of night, with no one watching, after we thought we had made the compromise on these workers, a few things were snuck into this bill. A big campaign contributor of the Republican Party was rewarded phenomenally. A provision was added to the homeland security bill that protected that big contributor but it has nothing to do with homeland security or protecting the American people. In fact, I say that this provision which was added will create insecurity in our homeland by sending a message to thousands of families that their children's health takes a distant second to the interests of large, wealthy, powerful corporate America. Let me explain. In my State of California, autism--a very haunting and mysterious brain disorder--has increased an astonishing 273 percent over the last decade and a half. Dr. Neil Halsey, a respected pediatrician and an expert in vaccination, for years said there was no connection between vaccines and autism. I am quoting from an article that appeared in Sunday's New York Times. There is ``some real risk to children,'' he said, ``from vaccines that contain mercury. It is used as a preservative in some of these vaccines.'' So what provisions did the Republicans put into the bill? A provision that holds harmless the company that produces Thimerosal, a mercury- based preservatives for vaccines. What does that have to do with homeland security? Absolutely nothing. Childhood vaccines have nothing to do at all with homeland security. What does it mean if this stands and we don't have the guts to strip it out? What does it mean to real people who are fighting this disease? Many of the families have filed class action lawsuits because--if you have ever seen an autistic child, although their symptoms range from mild to severe, in severe cases you are talking about essentially 24- hour care for that child. What will these families have to do? They will have to go to a taxpayer fund--a compensation fund that taxpayers pay for--which has very little money left in it, which is capped at an amount that will never pay for the cost of raising a child with this terrible disease. We heard testimony on the House side that some families trying to collect from this compensation fund have had to fight for 10 years to receive their awards. All the while, if this special interest rider passes, the companies that cause the problems will continue about their business. There is a lot about this rider which is upsetting and disturbing. First of all, how would you feel if you were a parent of a young child and all of a sudden, without any science, you have a liability waiver for this mercury compound? They are going to think: My goodness, if the Republicans--the Bush administration--is protecting their biggest contributors, maybe they know something we do not know; that this is really a problem because why would they bother doing it if they were not worried? This has nothing to do with homeland security. If it did, they would have said smallpox vaccines; they would have cited the vaccines. There are moments when I wonder why we are here if we are not willing to stand up and fight for the American people. The special interests, the powerful interests have so much behind them. They can so easily hire the lawyers they need, the representatives they need to come here to lobby. But the average family that gets struck with this type of a tragedy, all they have is the love in their family to get them through. What are we doing here? We have to help these people, not have a special interest provision that is put in in the dead of night that says to them: We do not care about you; we do not care about your kids; and if you have to suffer through, too bad, because we are going to protect the people who write the large contributions. (Mr. ROCKEFELLER assumed the chair.)

Mrs. BOXER. I will be happy to yield to my friend.

Mrs. BOXER. I thank my friend for her leadership. I point out to my colleagues who are here that four desks down from me sat Paul Wellstone for 12 years. If Paul was here now, he would be stepping outside that desk and telling us: Now is the time to stand up for people, for children, for people without a voice. Autistic kids sometimes cannot talk. We have to stand up and be counted on Monday when this vote takes place and take the consequences if somebody gets mad at us here or there because there is no reason to be here if we do not protect the people of this country. Mr. President, I am not going to take the Senate's time anymore. I have expressed myself. I look forward to casting a vote on the Daschle- Lieberman amendment to strike this rider and the other riders that were attached at the last minute, which I think is just a blatant attempt to give out special favors to the detriment of the American people. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, tonight, the Senate will consider the nomination of Michael McConnell to a life-time appointment to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. I oppose this nomination. Professor McConnell's record as a scholar, an advocate and an activist show him to be far outside the American mainstream on a number of critical constitutional, civil rights, and other legal issues. His views are so clear and consistent that I believe no litigant on areas such as reproductive rights or the separation of church and state could reasonably expect to receive a fair and impartial hearing in Judge McConnell's court room. Let me tell you why I believe that. Professor McConnell has called the right to choose an ``evil'' and one of the greatest injustices of our day. He would not simply overturn Roe v. Wade--a disastrous outcome for American women--he has gone so far as to suggest that the courts should declare embryos persons under the Fourteenth Amendment. He has called Roe v. Wade ``illegitimate,'' and has called for a constitutional amendment banning the right to choose and granting constitutional rights to embryos. Professor McConnell has also written and spoken against the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE). He believes--in contrast to every Federal appellate court that has considered the question--that it is unconstitutional. In a recent article, he expressed admiration for a district court judge who refused to apply FACE because the defendants did not act with ``bad purpose.'' Mr. President, that is not in the statute Congress passed. McConnell's statements of admiration for the ``judicial nullification'' of a Federal statute that he does not agree with speaks volumes about his inability to fairly and impartially apply a range of civil rights statutes that my conflict with his views. And it makes it clear that as a judge, he would be a judicial activist. McConnell has even criticized the Supreme Court's 8-1 decision in the Bob Jones case from 1983. In that decision, the Court ruled that the IRS may deny tax-exempt status to a school that discriminates against minorities. In a 1989 article, McConnell wrote that the ``racial doctrines of a Bob Jones University'' should have been ``tolerated'' because they were ``church teachings.'' Mr. President, I realize that this is not a Supreme Court nomination. But, the reality is that Circuit Courts make new law in many areas where the Supreme Court has not spoken. The Supreme Court hears fewer than 100 cases per year, while the Courts of Appeal decide close to 30,000. The truth is, the appellate court are very often the courts of last resort. As Justice Scalia recently wrote, ``the judges of inferior courts often make law, since the precedent of the highest court does not cover every situation, and not every case is reviewed.'' Already, Mr. President, increasingly conservative Federal courts are upholding greater and greater restrictions on the right to choose, chipping away at the protections of Roe vs. Wade. In the area of reproductive rights, the Circuit Courts routinely make new law, as anti-choice advocates test the constitutional limits with new and creative restrictions on the right to safe and legal abortion. The importance of each Federal judge in protecting the right to choose is underscored by the fact that many recent abortion cases have involved reversals and dissents, demonstrating that judges often disagree on the correct application of law. I believe that Professor McConnell's extensive anti- choice record shows that he will use every opening the law permits to further restrict a woman's right to choose. Unfortunately, Professor McConnell does not stand apart from other Bush nominees for his extreme ideology. I believe he was chosen because of it. Remaking the Federal courts has been a long-term goal of the right- wing base of the Republican party. They have pursued this goal with dogged determination and persistence for more than two decades, and they are succeeding. More and more restrictions on a woman's right to choose are being upheld as constitutional by the increasingly conservative Federal courts, while portions of anti-discrimination law and Violence Against Women Act--a law that Senator Biden wrote and that I was proud to sponsor when I was in the House--are struck down. This is not the right direction for the federal courts. Now Bush Administration is poised to tip the scales of justice even further to support an extreme anti-choice agenda, and the right to choose may well disappear for more and more American women--especially for poor women. Don't take my word for it. After last week's elections, former Reagan Administration attorney Bruce Fein said that there will be a philosophical revolution in the courts and that Bush nominees will impose a variety of new restrictions on a women's right to choose. The impact, he said, will be almost as great as if Robert Bork had been confirmed. Mr. President, during the Clinton Administration, I was repeatedly told by the Republican leadership in the Senate that I should only recommend moderate judges to fill judicial vacancies on the Federal courts in the state of California. Otherwise, I was told, Republicans would not let them be confirmed. President Bush should be held to the same standard. In fact, President Bush said he wanted to govern from the middle. And he fulfilled that commitment on the district court level in California when he agreed to a bipartisan committee selection process. That process has worked well, producing well-qualified mainstream nominees for eight open district court seats in California. However, Professor McConnell's nomination does not meet the test. He does not fulfill President Bush's commitment to govern from the middle. He does not meet the requirement established by the Senate Republican leadership during the Clinton Administration that nominees be moderate. No, Mr. President, Professor McConnell is far outside the mainstream. I again call on President Bush--as have so many in the Senate--to reach out across the aisle and to work with all of us to find and nominate the moderate, consensus judges that Americans deserve.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to share with my colleagues the memory of one of my constituents, Dorothy A. deAraujo, of Long Beach, California, who lost her life on September 11, 2001. Mrs. deAraujo was an 80-year-old retiree when the flight she was on, United Airlines Flight 175, was hijacked by terrorists. As we all know, that flight crashed into the World Trade Center killing everyone on board. Mrs. deAraujo was returning to her home in Long Beach after enjoying a lengthy visit with her son, Joaquim (``Tim''), his wife Rita and their two sons, Jonathan and Jason in Bedford, Massachusetts. Dorothy worked as an Executive Administrative Assistant in the business office of California State University, Long Beach for 20 years. She retired in 1979 and returned to the University as a student, earning her Bachelor's Degree in Fine Art. During her retirement, Mrs. deAraujo traveled extensively and pursued her passion for watercolor painting. She was a talented artist, and her paintings won several prizes in various competitions. During the 1970's Dorothy successfully overcame breast cancer. She was active in her community and devoted her spare time to the American Cancer Society. She was especially involved in operating the American Cancer Society's Discovery Shop in Belmont Shore. Mr. President, none of us is untouched by the terror of September 11th, and many Californians were part of each tragic moment of that tragic day. Some were trapped in the World Trade Center towers. Some were at work in the Pentagon. And the fates of some were sealed as they boarded planes bound for San Francisco or Los Angeles. I offer today this tribute to one of the 54 Californians who perished on that awful morning. I want to assure the family of Dorothy deAraujo, and the families of all the victims, that their fathers and mothers, sons and daughters, aunts, uncles, brothers and sisters will not be forgotten.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to share with my colleagues the memory of one of my constituents, Chandler Keller, of Manhattan Beach, California, who lost his life on September 11, 2001. He was a passenger on American Airlines Flight 77. As we all know, that plane crashed into the Pentagon, killing everyone on board. Mr. Keller was a 29 year-old lead propulsion engineer and project manager with Boeing Satellite Systems in El Segundo, California. Chandler Keller was known to his family and friends as ``Chad''. He was born in Manhattan Beach, California. Chad mostly grew up there, with the exception of some time spent in Hong Kong, New York and Sydney, Australia due to his father's work assignments with Security Pacific Corporation. As a child, Chad enjoyed a great love of rocketry and an avid interest in space. As a young boy he had an innate ability to understand machines and how to make them work. In 1993, Chad graduated from the University of Colorado's aerospace engineering program and pursued his career at Hughes/Boeing, working in their satellite launching program. Chad and his wife, Lisa Hurley Keller, were married on July 22, 2000 at the Old Mission in Santa Barbara. During their brief time together Chad and Lisa enjoyed travel, outdoor activities, and most of all, being with one another. Chad Keller enjoyed surfing, skiing and snowboarding. He loved to cook and possessed a wonderful sense of humor. ``He had the ability to bond with people, and he touched many lives during his short life. He lived his life to its fullest,'' says his father, Dick Keller. In celebration of his life, the Keller family established the Chandler Keller Memorial Scholarship at the University of Colorado. It is to be awarded to well-rounded aerospace engineering students. Chad was posthumously awarded the Defense of Freedom medal for his work with the Department of Defense in conjunction with Boeing Satellite Systems. Chad Keller is survived by his wife, Lisa Hurley Keller; parents Kathy and Dick Keller; brothers Brandon and Gavin; mother-in-law and father-in-law Shirley Ann and Jim Hurley; and brother-in-law James Hurley. Mr. President, none of us is untouched by the terror of September 11th, and many Californians were part of each tragic moment of that tragic day. Some were trapped in the World Trade Center towers. Some were at work in the Pentagon. And the fates of some were sealed as they boarded planes bound for San Francisco or Los Angeles. I offer this tribute to one of the 54 Californians who perished on that awful morning. I want to assure the family of Chad Keller, and the families of all the victims, that their fathers and mothers, sons and daughters, aunts, uncles, brothers and sisters will not be forgotten.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to share with the Senate the memory of Captain John D. Yamnicky, Sr., of Waldorf, Maryland, who lost his life on September 11, 2001. He was a passenger on American Airlines Flight 77. As we all know, that flight was hijacked by terrorists and crashed into the Pentagon, killing everyone on board. Captain Yamnicky was a 71-year-old retired naval aviator who, since his retirement from the United States Navy in 1979, continued to work as a defense contractor for Veridian Engineering. Captain Yamnicky was a gentleman and a scholar. He graduated from the Naval Academy in 1952, and devoted a 26-year career in service to this country. He served a combat tour in Korea and served two tours in Southeast Asia flying from aircraft carriers. He earned several military honors, including the Distinguished Flying Cross. After graduating from the Naval Test Pilot School at Patuxent River, Maryland, in 1961, one of his first assignments was to determine the minimum acceptable airspeed for the A-4 aircraft after a catapult launch from an aircraft carrier. He was inducted into the Society of Experimental Test Pilots in recognition of his contributions. In 1963, after that honor, Captain Yamnicky reported to VA-146 at NAS in Lemoore, California. Captain Yamnicky met his wife, Jann, while she was working as a nurse at Jacksonville Naval Hospital. They married in 1959 and had four children. Their son John David, of California, said of his father, ``This guy was the head of the family, he made everyone feel safe. If he ever talked about accomplishing something, it was as a group or a team. He was a modest man.'' Friend and colleague, Dennis Plautz, commented that, ``John Yamnicky emphasized teamwork. His style was never to leave a teammate straggling, rather work with them, help them, encourage them to maximize their potential.'' He applied this attitude in all areas of his life, including his community contributions. Captain Yamnicky served on the Board of Directors at his daughter Lorraine's high school, St. Mary's Academy, was a member of the Knights of Columbus, and the Elks Lodge. He was proud of his volunteer contributions to the De La Brooke Foxhounds Hunt Club, where he and Jann were members for 25 years. His best times were spent away from the office, riding on a tractor through the fields of his Waldorf horse farm. ``He loved being out there. His nature was not to stand around. He was always out in the fields, always working on something,'' remembers his son, John. Captain Yamnicky is survived by his wife Jann and their four children, John, Jr., Lorraine, Mark and Jennifer. Mr. President, none of us is untouched by the terror of September 11th, and many Californians were part of each tragic moment of that tragic day. Some were trapped in the World Trade Center towers. Some were at work in the Pentagon. And the fates of some were sealed as they boarded planes bound for San Francisco or Los Angeles. I offer today this tribute to one American who perished on that awful morning. I want to assure the family of Captain John D. Yamnicky, Sr., and the families of all the victims, that their fathers and mothers, sons and daughters, aunts, uncles, brothers and sisters will not be forgotten.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to share with my colleagues the memory of one of my constituents, Alan Beaven, who lost his life on September 11, 2001. Mr. Beaven was a 48-year-old environmental lawyer when the flight he was on, United Airlines Flight 93, was hijacked by terrorists. As we all know, that plane crashed in a Pennsylvania field, killing everyone on board. Mr. Beaven was born in New Zealand and was educated at the University of Auckland, New Zealand where he was a recipient of the Butterworth Prize. He taught law and practiced in the areas of securities, class actions and environmental law in New Zealand, England, New York and California. Considered one of our nation's leading environmental lawyers, over the past nine years Mr. Beaven prosecuted nearly 100 clean water cases. His law firm partner, Joe Tabbacco, observes, ``This is an absolutely remarkable record. Alan's efforts had almost single-handedly cleaned up the waters in Northern California through his aggressive prosecutions.'' California lost an environmental champion, and Mr. Beaven's family lost a loving and devoted husband and father. His proudest achievement was his family. His wife, Kimi Beaven, recalls, ``He would do anything for his children and spent hour after hour reading to Sonali, playing ball with John and scuba diving with Chris.'' Mr. Beaven was flying back to California to prosecute one more water pollution case before taking a sabbatical in India where he was to volunteer his services as an environmental lawyer. Alan Beaven was one of many heroes on Flight 93 who, aware of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, chose to fight back against the hijacking terrorists. His voice was recognized by his family on the cockpit voice recorder, and his remains were found in the wreckage of the cockpit. His son John perhaps describes Alan Beaven best when he writes, ``His love for simplicity and genuine appreciation for the happiness he held within was not lost on others; friends would always leave his company with uplifted spirits.'' Mr. President, none of us is untouched by the terror of September 11th, and many Californians were part of each tragic moment of that tragic day. Some were trapped in the World Trade Center towers. Some were at work in the Pentagon. And the fates of some were sealed as they boarded planes bound for San Francisco or Los Angeles. I offer today this tribute to one of the 54 Californians who perished on that awful morning. I want to assure the family of Alan Beaven, and the families of all the victims, that their fathers and mothers, sons and daughters, aunts, uncles, brothers and sisters will not be forgotten.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to share with my colleagues the memory of one of my constituents, Dino Xavier Suarez Ramirez, who lost his life on September 11, 2001. Mr. Ramirez was a 41-year-old civil engineer returning to Los Angeles from vacation when the flight he was on, American Airlines Flight 11, was hijacked by terrorists. As we all know, that plane crashed into the World Trade Center, killing everyone on board. Xavier Ramirez was born in Guayaquil, Ecuador and completed his primary and secondary education there, receiving certification in mathematics, physics, chemistry and biology. Mr. Ramirez achieved his goal of becoming a civil engineer by working during the day and completing his university studies at night. He majored in civil engineering at the University Laica Vicenete Rocafuerte de Guayaquil. ``He was very intelligent, and his hobby was reading. He knew very much about the history of nations because of his reading,'' recalls his mother, Blanca Vilma Ramirez. Upon coming to this country, Mr. Ramirez worked to have his degree recognized here. In his native country of Ecuador he worked in the construction of roads. His mother further recalls that, ``He worked very hard and was not afraid of any kind of job, wanting only to go beyond himself in what he did.'' Xavier Ramirez is survived by his mother, Blanca and his brother, Klinger David Suarez Ramirez. Mr. President, none of us is untouched by the terror of September 11th, and many Californians were part of each tragic moment of that tragic day. Some were trapped in the World Trade Center towers. Some were at work in the Pentagon. And the fates of some were sealed as they boarded planes bound for San Francisco or Los Angeles. I offer today this tribute to one of the 54 Californians who perished on that awful morning. I want to assure the family of Dino Ramirez, and the families of all the victims, that their fathers and mothers, sons and daughters, aunts, uncles, brothers and sisters will not be forgotten.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Thank you very much, Mr. President. Senator Dayton, your remarks were beautiful and Paul would have been so pleased to hear your tone and your spirit. And I can tell you, Senator Dayton, how much he loved you, how proud he was to have you here by his side. Mr. President, I have flown in from California to be here on the Senate floor today to make just a few remarks about our dear friend and colleague, Senator Paul Wellstone. I want to start by reading two paragraphs written by his loyal and hardworking staff. After his plane went down, and they learned the worst, they wrote the following: Paul Wellstone was one of a kind. He was a man of principle and conviction, in a world that has too little of either. He was dedicated to helping the little guy, in a business dominated by the big guys. We who had the privilege of working with him hope that he will be remembered as he lived every day: as a champion for people. His family was the center of his life and it breaks our hearts that his wife of 39 years and his daughter Marcia were with him. Our prayers are with Mark and David and the grandchildren he and Sheila cherished so much. That was posted on the Wellstone Web site by Senator Wellstone's staff. Mr. President, Senator Dayton, for me, the loss of Paul Wellstone cuts very deep. Kind, compassionate, self-deprecating, a passionate voice for those without a voice, enthusiastic, a bundle of energy--this was a unique man of the people. When we learned that the tragedy of Paul's death was magnified by the death of the two women he cherished so much--his wife Sheila and his daughter Marcia--the wounds in our hearts cut deeper still, plus the loss of three staffers--Tom Lapic, Will McLaughlin, and Mary McEvoy-- and the two pilots--Captains Richard Conroy and Michael Guess. Mr. President, no words--no words--can possibly ease the pain of all the family members who were touched by this tragedy. No words can ease the pain of David and Mark, Paul's two sons, and their families. All we can do is let them know that we pray that they have the strength to endure this time for the sake of the Wellstone grandchildren: Cari, Keith, Joshua, Acacia, Sydney, and Matt. Let the record show that your grandchildren brought endless joy to you. And we say to the grandchildren, thank you for the joy that you gave to grandma and grandpa. I want to say to the people of Minnesota, thank you, thank you for sending Paul to us, for sharing Paul with us these past 12 years. He loved the people of his State: the farmers, the workers, the children, the elderly, the sick, the disabled, the families. He fought for you all, so long and so hard, without stopping, in committees and subcommittees, in the Democratic caucus meetings, when he would get up and say: Just give me 30 seconds--just 30 seconds--to make my point about the people of Minnesota. He stood up at press conferences. He would grab Senators, one by one, and fight for you, the people of Minnesota, who were always in his thoughts and on his mind. And I know he is now in your thoughts and on your minds. In my own State of California--so many thousands of miles away from Minnesota--there are memorial services being set up for Paul. You see, his compassionate voice reached thousands of miles, and many people in my State are sending me condolence notes and flowers because they know how much I will miss working with Paul Wellstone, and so will all Senators on both sides of the aisle. As Mark said, Paul was never afraid to speak out when it might be unpopular, nor was he afraid to be on the losing side of a Senate vote. He had courage. And when you told him that, when you said: ``Paul, you have courage,'' he shrugged it off. He would say something like: ``What else could I do? It's just not right!'' He would say that--determined, brave. You see, Paul Wellstone could not vote against his conscience or for something he did not believe was in the best interest of the people he represented. He couldn't; he wouldn't--no matter what the consequences. He cared about the underdog always. He cared about the victim always. He cared about peace always. And Paul, blessed are the peacemakers. Paul, blessed are the peacemakers. Paul was a humble man. When his longtime staffer, Mike Epstein, died--and many of us knew Mike--Paul took to the Senate floor, and this is what he said, in part: Mike, I know you will not like me saying this, but I'm going to say it anyway because it's true. I believe from the bottom of my heart that everything I've been able to do as a Senator that has been good for Minnesota and the country is because, Mike, you have been right by my side, 1 inch away from me. And he said: Mike was my tutor. He was my teacher. He was teaching me. That was Paul Wellstone. He never bragged about himself. He loved his family so much. He loved his staff. He took time for all the Senate employees: the young people who work with us, the officers who protect us, the food service people, the elevator operators--all the Senate family, no matter what their status. Mr. President, he wanted to give everyone--everyone he touched--his sense of optimism, his energy, his strength. When Paul learned he had multiple sclerosis, I worried and I said to him: Are you OK? He said: I probably had it for a long time. I'm just not going to think about it. And off he went in his usual rush. There was so much to do. Off he went to his desk in the Senate, his desk now incredibly shrouded in black. Paul loved that aisle desk. It gave him a bird's eye view of the Senate that he loved. And when he spoke from his desk, he could come out from behind it. He could leave his notes behind--arms gesturing, voice determined--and talk from his heart. He would say something like: I don't represent big business or big anything. He would say: I represent the people of Minnesota. And that he did every minute of his all-too-short life. As our session wound down, Paul wanted to finish our business and go home. He told us all: I want to be with my people. I need to touch them. I need to look them in the eye. I can't wait to get home. Paul was a powerful man. His power did not come from his physical stature. He was strong but he was slight of build. His power did not come from generations of family wealth. He was not a man of moneyed wealth. His parents were immigrants: Leon and Minnie Wellstone. His power did not come from political connections. His connections were with regular people. Let me tell you from where his power came. It came from a fierce dedication to justice and truth and honesty and righteousness. He gave comfort and he gave hope to those he touched. And he gave them some of his power--the power to see the possibilities of their own lives. Paul died on his way to give comfort and hope to those facing death. He was flying to a funeral service. Today we say to Paul: We will give comfort and hope to those you have left behind by doing all that we can to continue your legacy and your dream. Together, we can build an America of fairness, of justice, of prosperity, a world of tolerance and a world of peace. And, Paul, may you and yours rest in peace forever. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to share with the Senate my thoughts on 33 women who courageously served as rescue and medical workers, firefighters and police officers in New York City on September 11, 2001. It is my great honor to recognize the extraordinary contributions made by these rescue workers who bravely worked to save lives at Ground Zero in New York City during the horror of September 11, 2001. The selfless actions of these women helped heal our country during a time of national tragedy. On September 11, we found out as a Nation what heroism truly is, how strong and united we can be, how we can set aside differences for the greater good and work together. And these women helped show us the way. Some wonderful people in my home State of California are bringing these women to Sonoma County for an all-expense-paid week in the wine country to pay tribute to their heroism. I want to send my warmest thanks to Susan Hagen and Mary Carouba, authors of Women at Ground Zero, who wanted to make sure that the contributions of women rescue workers were recognized and honored along with their male counterparts. In honor of their incredible efforts on September 11 and the important work they do every day, I am going to read the names of 30 women who worked at Ground Zero and then I will remember 3 women rescue workers who lost their lives on September 11, 2001. Detective Jennifer Abramowitz; Rose Arce, who is not a rescue worker but who was doing a live broadcast next to Ground Zero on September 11 in order to get vital escape and rescue information out; Lieutenant Doreen Ascatigno; Captain Brenda Berkman; Maureen Brown; Tracy Donahoo; Major Kally Eastman; Bonnie Giebfried; Lieutenant Kathleen Gonczi; Sarah Hallett, PhD; Captain Rochelle ``Rocky'' Jones; Sue Keane; Tracy Lewis; Patty Lucci; Christine Mazzola; Lieutenant Ella McNair; Captain Marianne Monahan; Lieutenant Amy Monroe; Lois Mungay; Captain Janice Olszewski; Carol Paukner; Sergeant Carey Policastro; Mercedes Rivera; Lieutenant Kim Royster; Maureen McArdle-Schulman; Major Molly Shotzberger; JoAnn Spreen; Captain Terri Tobin; Nancy Ramos-Williams; and Regina Wilson. I also want the following names to be memorialized today: Yamel Merino, Emergency Medical Technician; Captain Kathy Mazza, Commanding Officer of the Police Academy at the Port Authority Police Department; and Moira Smith, police officer with the New York Police Department. All three of these women sacrificed their lives on September 11, 2001 in their heroic efforts to save the lives of others. None of us is untouched by the terror of September 11, and many Californians were part of each tragic moment of that tragic day. I offer today this tribute to the heroic women who worked tirelessly and selflessly at Ground Zero. I want to assure the families of Yamel Merino, Captain Kathy Mazza, and Officer Moira Smith that their mothers, daughters, aunts, and sisters will not be forgotten. And we will always be grateful to the brave men and women who worked tirelessly and selflessly at Ground Zero.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am pleased to take this moment to reflect on Lieutenant Raymond Griffith's outstanding service on the occasion of his retirement from the Cathedral City Police Department. The Department will honor him on November 8, 2002. Lieutenant Griffith has had a career devoted to public service spanning more than 33 years. After graduating as Valedictorian from the Los Angeles Police Academy, he began his career at the Orange Police Department and remained there for 15 years. He served the department in many areas, including patrol, training, internal affairs, detectives, juvenile, and nine years in the special weapons unit. Lieutenant Griffith's expertise equipped him well for the next step in his career, Sergeant of the then-new Cathedral City Police Department. As one of the first employees of the department, Lieutenant Griffith helped get the operation off to a good start. He played a key role in developing policies and procedures, hiring staff and obtaining facilities and equipment. Throughout the agency's 18-year history, Lieutenant Griffith has been seen as a ``founding father'' of the department and an important leader in its operation. In addition to serving on the police force, Lieutenant Griffith has served as a valued law enforcement instructor and trainer at the College of the Desert, Riverside Community College and at the Police Academy. He has also served our Nation in the United States Marine Corps and the Coast Guard Reserves. It is clear that Lieutenant Griffith deserves the praise he has received from his colleagues and peers. I extend to him my sincere congratulations for his service to the force, broader community and to our Nation. Although his presence will be missed, he has left a legacy of leadership that will be long remembered.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, on Saturday, November 16, 2002, the city of Oakland will celebrate the remarkable career in public service of retiring Oakland City Councilmember Dick Spees, who has served on the council with grace, wit and distinction for 24 years. The celebration--2003: A Spees Odyssey will take place at the Chabot Space and Science Center in Oakland. Councilmember Spees leaves a quarter-century legacy of service to his constituents, as well as council leadership on issues of economic development, marketing, good government, finance, quality of life, public safety, and regional planning. Among his many accomplishments, he led local efforts to found Chabot Space & Science Center; Oakland-Sharing the Vision; Oakland Tours; the Bay Area Economic Forum; the Bay Area World Trade Center, and the Bay Area Bioscience Center. He has led campaigns to pass bond measures that have purchased open space, built recreation centers, libraries and cultural facilities, and upgraded emergency response facilities and equipment. As chair of the City Council's Rules Committee, Dick has shepherded campaign finance reform, the sunshine ordinance, the lobbyist registration ordinance and the formation of the public ethics commission. He has also spearheaded development of the city, State and Federal legislative programs and led advocacy efforts in Sacramento and Washington, DC. A skilled negotiator, Dick has resolved many contentious issues in District 4 and in the city, including the expansion of Dreyer's Grand Ice Cream, Montclair Lucky Store, Fred Finch Youth Center, and Lincoln Child Center. He negotiated recent amendments to the Residential Rent Arbitration Program. In the area of economic development, Councilmember Spees has led many of the city's marketing efforts, has collaborated on writing Oakland's telecommunications policy, and has initiated business attraction efforts for telecommunications, digital media, software, and bioscience companies. He has promoted economic development in District 4 through zoning changes, streetscape improvements, utility undergrounding, and outreach to interested developers. Throughout his career, Dick has represented Oakland on Bay Area regional agencies. He currently serves on the Association of Bay Area Governments, the Bay Area Economic Forum, the Regional Airport Planning Committee, the Bay Area World Trade Center, Oakland Base Reuse Authority, and cochairs the City-Port Liaison Committee and the BAR T- Oakland Airport Connector Stakeholders Committee. The people of Oakland are losing a remarkable public servant in Dick Spees, but I suspect that his heart with never be far from the people he has represented so well for so long. I wish the very best to him and his wife Jean.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I will be happy to yield to my friend.

Mrs. BOXER. Before the Senator leaves, I have a question for him. We have not seen an increase in the minimum wage since 1996. This is going on 7 years. Does it not amaze my friend to see the passionate debate that happens here when our friends on the other side of the aisle talk about giving tax breaks worth 10 times more than what someone working at minimum wage for 1 year would earn? In other words, for people earning a million dollars a year, the Bush tax cut is going to be more than $50,000 a year in their pocket. That is more than-- well, how many times more than $11,000? Maybe four times. And our friends, we see them get tears in their eyes worrying about the people at the top of the economic ladder. Yet they will not even give us a vote. I just cannot believe it, in this day and age, that we would have to wait so long to do this little piece of economic justice. I wonder if my friend thinks about that. He and I talk about this as we watch our friends when there is a tax cut to the wealthy few--the passion, the excitement, the dedication to this. Yet we cannot get a vote for the people at the bottom of the ladder.

Mrs. BOXER. I thank my friend. He has made, of course, a great moral argument for increasing this minimum wage. I point out that in 1996 when we passed this--my friend from Nevada may well remember--my friends on the other side finally went along. Remember, we had a Democratic President. They predicted we would have a terrible economy because we were raising the minimum wage. Oh, this was going to be a damper. This was going to be awful. What happened? We had the greatest economic recovery we have ever seen, the greatest economic boom we have ever seen. Now, when we are making a plea to our colleagues that those who have carried this country through these good times have fallen behind, they are too busy thinking of ways to cut the taxes for the people at the top. I believe it is important to note, as we look at this economic record and how terrible it is, that there are a few actions we could take. Yes, we did something today. We got some budgetary discipline back into this body today. I am proud we did that. But I say to my friends, there is lots we could do to change this pattern. One is to change this stagnating minimum wage. Give a little boost to a few people. They will turn around, spend it at the corner store, have more dignity, and spark this economy in a way that all the tax cuts to the top people just don't. It just doesn't happen that way.

Mrs. BOXER. I am happy to do that.

Mrs. BOXER. Yes. I have pointed out here, as has the Senator, my friend, and Senator Daschle, record job losses that we are seeing, the weakest economic growth. We all know stories. We read the headlines: 10,000 jobs lost here, 5,000 there, 2,000 there. I say to my friend from Nevada, behind every one of these record job losses is a personal story. It is not as if this administration is willing to give folks the tools to retrain. We on this side of the aisle have to fight every inch of the way to save programs that give people the tools to retrain. We have had to fight the Bush administration on the H-1B program--it is a wonderful program that my friend has supported along with me--to retrain people. We have personal stories of those people, where they have done so well with worker retraining. We have to fight every step of the way. Even with the free trade bill, there was a big struggle to see if we could make part of that, at least, some worker retraining. My friend is right. This is not only a terrible record, it is a reversal from policies that were brought to us by a Democratic President, Bill Clinton, that brought us a wonderful economy and hope in our future. I think it is important that our friends ask, What do you Democrats want to do? I think Senator Daschle laid that out. I want to spend a couple of minutes in closing by laying out what our solution is here. We took a step today--budget enforcement. Here it is. We took a step. We couldn't get it for another year. We took it for as long as we could get it. It is going to take 60 votes--at least through April--to raid the Social Security trust fund again. It is going to take 60 votes to bleed this budget without paying for it. So we did that. That is something Alan Greenspan said we should do. What else can we do? Unemployment insurance. We have people who are suffering because they cannot find a new job in this terrible recessionary period. They need an extension of unemployment. Day after day Democrats have been down here asking, begging, cajoling, Can we not pass another extension? We can't get it through. They do not want to raise the minimum wage. People can't live on a minimum wage. They won't expand unemployment insurance to help people get through until they find a job. What is their answer? More tax cuts for the rich. It doesn't work. We tried that. I didn't vote for it, I am happy to say. But it passed here because most Presidents get 90 percent of what they ask for. That is true of Democrat Presidents and Republican Presidents. The President got it. What have we seen as a result? Terrible times. That is not the answer. Why doesn't this President spend some time on the economy? Call Senator Daschle and say, Senator Daschle, you came over here to the White House to talk about the war in Iraq. Congressman Gephardt, the Democratic leader, you came over here and talked about the war on terror. We speak as one voice on foreign policy. Even if we have a few disagreements along the way, we set them aside. Why don't we have time to talk about this economy, Mr. President? I have been saying we have to do foreign policy and economic policy. We have to do more than one thing at a time. Now the President is doing two things at one time--foreign policy and campaigning. Call off those campaign trips, Mr. President. Let us have a little summit and talk about the need for unemployment insurance and have that to stimulate our economy so people get their money. Minimum wage. This man is a compassionate man. I have seen compassion in his face. I know he has compassion in his heart. Where is his compassion for the people who are working at the bottom of the ladder? Let us talk about it, Mr. President. Fiscal relief to States. This administration is asking States to do a lot after we were attacked on 9/11, and the States are trying their best. We have been hit with recession. Where is the money for port security? Where is the money for airport security? Where is the money for chemical plant security? Where is the money for nuclear plant security? We gave it to this President--and he refused to spend it-- $5.1 billion for all those things. He is complaining that we will not pass this reshuffling and this new Department, which I have a lot of doubts about. You could do more good by spending the $5.1 billion that we Democrats and Republicans voted to spend under the emergency powers we have. Instead of walking away from that, that would have helped our people in local and State government. That would have helped our people by giving them protection. We are offering people who live within 10 miles of a nuclear power plant an iodine pill in case they are exposed. Wouldn't you rather prevent something from happening by making sure that the plants are secure? All of these things are on point with the economy because we must protect the homeland, and if we do it right, we will provide jobs and we will stimulate this economy. It all fits in with fiscal relief to States, and that will help this economy. We have even offered rebates and better targeted business incentives. Why do we give businesses incentives to run away off shore to avoid taxes? Let us give them real incentives to invest, real incentives to hire, and real incentives if they retrain workers. I already talked about investments in homeland security. But I didn't mention schools. We have schools that are falling apart, Mr. President. I know how dedicated you are to education. You and I know there is a message sent to our children when they go to school and there are tiles falling off the ceiling, the place is dirty, and you are breathing in mold. Some of these schools haven't been really touched in tens of years. That is where our teachers are supposed to teach our children. We Democrats believe you are sending a message when a child goes to a department store and sees how beautiful it is. There is a message there. It is a subtle message--or maybe it is not so subtle. Gee, this is important. But when the child goes to school, the place where they are going to get the American dream--I am the product of public schools. I never went to a private school in my life, from kindergarten through college. It is the way I got the skills I needed. We need to invest in those schools. In that investment, we will give a boost to this economy. Investment in health research. How many people do we meet whose relatives are suffering from Alzheimer's, or cancer, or heart disease, or diabetes? We know we have a host of diseases--spinal cord injuries. We should invest in that science. That will help our people. It will lift our economy. Pension reform. God knows we need pension reform. We can't have a circumstance where people are relying on a pension, and when they are ready to retire it is not there. That is devastating. It is devastating to our whole country. The bottom line is we haven't done anything about pension reform. We haven't attacked the problem. Our friends on the other side of the aisle are not interested in it. That is a fact. We now have to enforce the Corporate Accountability Act. Harvey Pitt was supposed to appoint someone under the new board created in the Sarbanes bill. It got a little too hot at the top there for this man. It was too good, and they backed off. How can we get anywhere against these people who are in these high positions in corporate America if we don't enforce our own laws? This President needs a new economic team. I listen to the people who come here, and they talk about how great the economy is. It is a rosy scenario. They do not even admit we have a problem. I could name every single one of them, and I could give you their quotes. Maybe someone will do that later in the day. But every single member of the economic team is in denial: Oh, everything is wonderful. The stock market is turning around. Recession, we don't have a recession. We have turned the corner. Maybe this is the reason they do not want to act on any of these issues. They don't want to raise the minimum wage. They don't care. They don't want to give people unemployment insurance. They do not care. They don't care about our States. It is unbelievable to me. Here is the bottom line. We are getting ready to leave here for a few weeks. The people of America are going to make their decisions. I just hope whatever side of the aisle they are from, or whatever ideology they are from, whatever they are thinking, they will assert their responsibility and vote in this election. This election is crucial. I meet people all the time who say, Oh, all the candidates are alike. No; not true. If you broach any of these issues to people who may have touched your heart, you will find people with differing views. You are never going to find anyone with whom you agree 100 percent of the time. But what happens in this Chamber is dependent on the views of the American people. And this is an important time. Whether you agree with everything I said, whether you agree with 50 percent of what I said, or if you disagree with me on everything I said, that is not important. It is important to understand what is at stake right now. Are we going to move forward with an economic plan that addresses this economy while we engage in the challenge we were given on September 11 and all the other foreign policy challenges we face? I think we have no choice. We need to do more than one thing at a time. We need to do a lot of things. (Ms. CANTWELL assumed the Chair.)

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I understand both leaders are now talking about doing some important nominations, and some of us are here to make sure that those happen. I will cease and desist from speaking as soon as the leaders return and wish to conduct the business of the Senate. In the meantime, I thought it would be interesting to sum up where we are and try to focus some attention on this economy. Today, the Senate did take a first step in addressing the economy, and that is by trying to restore some discipline to our budgetary process. Sadly, we had a holdup from the Republican side which delayed us. As a matter of fact, the way we resolved it, as I understand it, is we did not extend these very important budget rules for a year. We just did it until April. They have been extended until April, but at least we have some fiscal discipline until April 15. It amazes me that our friends on the other side of the aisle talk about how conservative they are. They are certainly not very conservative when it comes to balancing our budget and having some fiscal discipline. What we were able to do today was to at least reach an agreement until April 15 that we will have a 60-vote requirement in order to waive the points of order in the Senate if somebody wants to dip into the Social Security trust fund, tries to increase spending or increase tax cuts, and completely abandon the kind of fiscal discipline we need. So we have kept that 60-vote requirement so we cannot completely destroy the budget, which is what has been happening. As everyone in America knows, we went from a period of fiscal health under President Clinton to a position now where we are deep in debt. If we do not put some discipline back into our budget, it is only going to get worse. We also have retained, at least until April, a pay-as-you-go point of order so that if, in fact, spending is increased in any way or the deficit goes up in any way, it can be offset, and that is very important. Pay-as-you-go is something I have been working on since my days in the House of Representatives, and it makes a lot of sense. Most of our families have to do that. If they decide, for example, that they want to send their son or daughter to an expensive college, they have to find extra money, they have to figure out how they are going to pay for it. All of America does it. We ought to do it here. At least we were able to get that done through April 15. I want to read what Alan Greenspan, the Federal Reserve Chairman, has said about the importance of putting this discipline back into our budget process. First, I have to compliment Senator Conrad, who is the chairman of our Budget Committee, for leading us so well, for fighting this battle and for not giving up. It would have been very easy for him to say, ``forget about it,'' and relent. People want to go home, they want to campaign, they want to see their constituents in California, as I want to, or the Dakotas, where Senator Conrad's people are. The bottom line is, we said we would stay until we got this done, and at least we got the Republicans to agree to do this through April. This is what Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said about the important rules we passed today: The budget enforcement rules are set to expire on September 30. Failing to preserve them would be a grave mistake . . . if we do not preserve the budget rules and reaffirm our commitment to fiscal responsibility, years of hard effort could be squandered. It is incredible to me that with that kind of endorsement by Alan Greenspan--and all of us know how hard it was to bring the budget into balance, to bring the deficit down, to start to reduce the national debt. It is incredible to me that our Republicans friends, who claim to be fiscal conservatives, were objecting to this. In fairness, we did have some of our friends helping us get this through. There was an objection on that side of the aisle that caused us not to be able to put the budget rules in place until April. We did take the first step to restore some kind of discipline to our budgeting which is necessary to see an economic recovery. When we are out of control and we are losing control over our budget, it carries over into the private sector. Eventually higher interest rates will come about because there will be a squeeze on lending.N O T I C E Effective January 1, 2003, the subscription price of the Congressional Record will be $434 per year or $217 for six months. Individual issues may be purchased for $6.00 per copy. Subscriptions in microfiche format will be $141 per year with single copies priced at $1.50. This price increase is necessary based upon the cost of printing and distribution. Michael F. DiMario, Public Printer I will share some situations we are facing with the current economic situation. We have many problems. This is just one of our problems. We are in a recession. We hope it will not be long term. We pray it will not be long term. We know there are a lot of problems. Superimposed over all the economic problems is the fact that our workers are having to pay so much more for their health insurance. By the way, this goes for the small business people as well. From my family experience, we have seen in small businesses the cost of health insurance rising enormously, and good employers who want to pay the premiums are looking at disastrous increases in the cost of health care for their employees. Family coverage has risen 16 percent and single coverage has risen 27 percent in the year 2002. If you have a good economy and jobs are plentiful, you can absorb this hit, but if you are seeing a recession, maybe your job is not secure, maybe you are working fewer hours, you surely have a problem when you look at your nest egg, which is another problem we are facing in terms of investments for retirement. These increases are hurting our people and hurting them badly. Now a look at the bigger picture and what has happened under this President's watch. We have two arrows on this chart, an ``up'' arrow and a ``down'' arrow. It is miserable to look at. Everything you want down is up and everything you want up is down. What is up on the economic indicators? Job losses, way up; health care costs, way up; foreclosures, way up. People are losing their homes. In America today, the average American is just a few months away from not being able to make that mortgage payment if they were to lose their job. The national debt, way up. We are seeing the debt grow again after we thought we really had a plan to reverse it. Federal interest costs are going up. Social Security trust fund has been raided. The fact is our interest costs each year are going up, and that means we do not have funds to spend on other things. What is down in the Bush economic record? Economic growth is down. As a matter of fact, we took a look at the GDP and it looks to us to be the worst in 50 years when compared to other administrations. Business investment is down. We know the stock market is down. It is volatile. I used to be a stockbroker many years ago. I have never seen these gyrations. Where is the bottom? We hope we have seen the bottom. Certainly we have a problem when we have an administration that is talking about privatizing Social Security, when we see what has happened to the stock market. If we had turned away from Social Security and we had invested as a government in the stock market instead of safe government bonds, where would we be with our seniors today? Believe me, it would be a disaster. I hope the American people will think about that as they look at these economic indicators. Retirement accounts are down, 401(k) plans. Everyone--I have spoken to so many people--is afraid to open up their mail to see what has happened to their 401(k)'s. They believe in this country. We all know we will come back. But right now it is a problem. If you are at retirement age right now and you do not have the luxury to say, as a lot of people tell me, ``Senator, I will just work another 5 years,'' that is all well and good if you are healthy and can work another 5 years. But what is the ramification of that? Not only are you delaying this time of your life you wanted to enjoy your family, perhaps take a trip, you are staying in the job market. That means younger people do not have the opportunity to move in. There are a lot of ramifications when we see the stock market down and the retirement accounts down. That may not hit you at first glance. Consumer confidence is down. The minimum wage, when you take inflation into account, is way down. On the other side of the aisle, my Republican friends do not want to raise the minimum wage. I ask how they can live on $10,600 a year? They know it would be very difficult. The minimum wage has not been raised in years. I don't understand their opposition. It is not only the right thing to do for our people, but we know people at that scale of the economic ladder will spend. That will help restore this economy. They will go down to the local store. They will spend that increase in the minimum wage. This administration believes you give tax cuts to the wealthiest and you will solve all the problems of the world. The fact is the wealthy people do not spend it. If they earn over a million a year, they do not need it; they will not necessarily spend it. Therefore, the economy does not get a benefit; whereas, if you direct those tax cuts to the middle class, say the people even earning $40,000, $50,000 or $60,000 a year or lower, you will have an immediate impact. That is why I never understood the ``economic plan'' of this administration with all its tax breaks for the richest of the richest of the rich. It does not help our economy. We know it does not. Look at our economy. This administration has been in for a couple of years now, and we have never had a worse economy. Their plan for everything is cut taxes for the wealthiest people. It doesn't work. Every indicator you want to see down is up, and the opposite is true. John Adams said: Facts are stubborn things. They are stubborn, but they are facts. And the American people have to look at the facts and look them in the eye and think about them. The Bush economic record: Record job losses; weak economic growth; declining business investment; falling stock market; shrinking retirement accounts; eroding consumer confidence; rising health care costs; escalating foreclosures; vanishing surpluses and higher interest costs for the government. We have to borrow now to pay for the daily operations of the government. We pay interest for that--billions of dollars of interest that we cannot spend investing in education, investing in our people, investing to clean up our environment. Raiding Social Security. We see record executive pay. That is not healthy for our country to have that great disparity. I am all for success. But I saw this runaway corporate irresponsibility in my State perhaps before others, a little company called Enron. Finally we are getting justice. Today we have the first news of a guilty plea of a fellow very high up in the chain. What did he admit to? Creating these scams to defraud the people, making phony electricity shortages. He admitted to conspiracy, wire fraud. The bottom line is, names will be named. These people receive record executive pay. A stagnating minimum wage. I see my friend from Massachusetts, who has been a lion on this point. Every day he is here, calling for our friends on the other side to let us pass a minimum wage increase. I thank him for that because we need his voice. We need it all the time. The fact is, people are suffering out there and our economy is suffering because the people at the minimum wage have nothing to spend. If they got a little increase, it would go right into those local stores. So we are very hopeful that maybe there will be a change around here and maybe my friend from Massachusetts will hear the echoes from the other side of the aisle, and maybe there will be more on this side. We don't know what is going to happen.

Mrs. BOXER. I see my friend from Washington is now presiding. She and I have worked very hard to preserve and protect the environment of this country. Not a day goes by that this administration isn't doing something to weaken our environmental laws, whether it is clean air or it is clean water. We all know what happened with arsenic in the water. We stopped that. But every day, in every way, they are doing something to weaken laws. Just the other day, in California, this administration sided with the big auto companies. They are suing my State because my State wants clean air and they want to see cars that emit less pollution. Here is an administration that claims they love States rights, they love local control. Well, they love States rights, and they love local control, unless they disagree with your State at the moment or your locality at the moment. Then, suddenly, oh, the Federal Government: We are the ones who have to make the rules. So there is so much at stake. I just took to the floor because I thought before we recessed, I might put it in the Record. I want to say, in relation to all these issues that are so very difficult--the issue of war and peace, the issue of this economy, the issue of the environment, the issue of a woman's right to choose, that is under tremendous attack every day by this administration--and I should mention the horrible time people in the Washington, DC, area are going through because of a sniper out there--these are hard times, but a little light peeks through every once in a while. I thought I would end on an up note: Two of my teams in California are going to the World Series. So even in these hard times, a little brightness shines through. For this Senator from California, I could not be more proud of these two teams from San Francisco and Anaheim. It is going to be very hard for me. What am I going to do? I have to root for everybody. But whatever happens, California will win. And if I have my way, once that is over, I want California to win on this economy, on the environment. I want the kids in my State to have the best education, the best health care, the best life, the best shot at the American dream. So after the World Series is over, and after the elections are over, I will be back here and I will be fighting for those very things. I thank you very much, Madam President. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. BOXER

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

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I come before my colleagues today to pay tribute to the San Francisco Giants and their exceptional achievements on their road to the National League Pennant. On October 14, the Giants won the National League Championship Series in the bottom of the ninth inning on three consecutive hits in a rally that began with two outs. This game, and this particular conclusion, were emblematic of their entire season--hard fought, dramatic and filled with contributions from the entire lineup. Earlier in the season some said that the team did not have a serious chance to make the post-season. One local sports columnist said the Giants should play minor league prospects in September because their situation was effectively hopeless--the Giants were 11\1/2\ games out of first place in the Western Division with a week left in August. Manager Dusty Baker said throughout the season that the Giants were a team of veterans, and he expected them to have a strong second half of the season. He was right, as he has been so many times. After their low mark in August the team went on a run that never ended. The Giants have won 32 of their past 43 games, including eight straight at the end of the season. This will be the first World Series appearance for the San Francisco Giants since 1989. Their only other trip to the Series was in 1962. Giants fans are rightly thrilled. This has been a special season for the Giants, marked by savvy decisions in the front office, great leadership from the manager, key contributions from the entire team and outstanding fan support. This pennant is a result of organization-wide commitment and effort. In a world with much cause for anxiety, our national pastime provides a welcome break. I invite my colleagues to join me in saluting the San Francisco Giants, baseball's 2002 National League Champions.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, on Saturday, November 10, the Environmental Defense Center will celebrate its 25th anniversary of action to protect the environment in Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties. I would like to take this moment to reflect on EDC's wonderful work. For the past quarter century, EDC has served as a powerful voice for the environment. We can look to natural places like the Channel Islands National Park and National Marine Sanctuary and the Los Padres National Forest to see the impact of EDC's work. It has fought for clean air and water, the preservation of our precious wild heritage, and the clean up of military bases and toxic waste sites. It has also played a crucial role in the fight to stop oil drilling off our coast, an issue so important to California. As a longtime supporter of our nation's environment, I know how crucial it is to protect our natural resources. We must continue to work to both safeguard our environment and maintain a healthy economy. EDC has helped us work toward this goal. I am pleased to congratulate EDC on this important milestone and wish the staff continued success.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I come before my colleagues today to offer my congratulations to the Anaheim Angels on their American League Championship Series victory. The Angels 13 to 5 win on October 13 gives Anaheim its first World Series berth in its 42-year history, a dream come true for Angels' fans around the country. Throughout the 2002 season, the Angels have demonstrated the grit, dedication and focus that it takes to become champions. Baseball fans across the Nation have fallen in love with this team, not only because of its winning ways, but because of how it wins. It is only appropriate that the Angels' hard work be rewarded with a chance at a World Series Championship. The road to the World Series was not easy for the Anaheim Angels. Making the playoffs as a wildcard team, nobody expected the Angels to win. When the team matched up against the perennial favorite New York Yankees in the first round of the playoffs, the odds against them grew even greater. However, against all odds, and contrary to the experts who said they could not win, the Anaheim Angels went out and proved everyone wrong. On the strength of a record-tying inning, and a three home-run night by second baseman Adam Kennedy, the Angels scored 10 runs in the seventh inning to beat a determined Minnesota Twins team. This come-from-behind win epitomizes the heart of the Angels organization, not only this year but throughout its storied history, a history that came full circle when Jackie Autry, widow of the Angels founder and owner and cowboy legend Gene Autry, presented the team with the League Championship trophy. The Anaheim Angels symbolize what makes team sports great. The team proved that you do not need the biggest stars or the highest payroll to achieve the greatest of goals. I wish the Angels the best of luck in the World Series, and, on behalf of all the fans, I thank the team for what has already been one of the most memorable baseball seasons ever.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, on November 10, 2002, Third Baptist Church of San Francisco will celebrate 150 years of service to the community. I would like to take this opportunity to direct the Senate's attention to this remarkable milestone and reflect about the history of the church and what it means to the people of San Francisco. Third Baptist Church, formally known as the First Colored Baptist Church of San Francisco, was founded in the home of William and Eliza Davis in August, 1852. Since then, the church has grown and thrived. Today it serves as place of worship for thousands of congregants. In addition, it provides a wide variety of ministries to people of all ages. As the first black Baptist congregation established west of the Rocky Mountains, Third Baptist has developed into a great source of guidance and strength for the people of San Francisco, especially in the African American Community. It is a place of solace and sanctuary, a place where the spirit and soul can be rejuvenated. And it is a place where people gather to celebrate the great joys of life and share in the fellowship of other parishioners. Not just a part of the community, Third Baptist is a community unto itself. During the past 150 years, thousands of people have found inspiration through Third Baptist's doors. The church has witnessed many pivotal moments in the history of our state, nation and the African-American community. And with each challenge, it has emerged as a stronger, more vibrant institution. Third Baptist Church has been blessed with the leadership of many fine pastors. From Reverend Charles Satchell to Reverend Amos C. Brown, the current senior pastor, the Third Baptist Church continues to be a strong voice for those who too often have no voice at all. I am aware that President Bill Clinton and other dignitaries will be present at this 150th anniversary event. I extend my personal congratulations and thanks for 150 years of devoted service.