Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, domestic violence is a national crisis that shatters the lives of millions of women across this country and tears at the fabric of this society. Despite increased efforts prompted by legislation such as the Violence Against Women Act, domestic violence continues to be the leading cause of injury to women across the country between the ages of 15 to 44. Furthermore, many of our health professionals today--those who are often the first in a position to recognize domestic violence, still do not have the proper training to assist these very vulnerable victims. Wonderful partnerships currently exist between many hospitals and graduate medical institutions and these partnerships should be encouraged in order to more effectively serve victims of domestic violence and prevent future violent attacks. For these reasons, I am reintroducing my bill, the Domestic Violence Identification and Referral Act, which would help ensure that medical professionals have the training they need to recognize and treat domestic violence, including spouse abuse, child abuse, and elder abuse. The bill would amend the Public Health Service Act to require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to give preference in awarding grants to institutions that train health professionals in identifying, treating, and referring patients who are victims of domestic violence to appropriate services. I encourage my colleagues to support this worthwhile legislation that would help in our continued fight to prevent domestic violence across this nation.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I would like to recognize Judge Brett Dorian as he retires after almost 12 years as a United States Bankruptcy Judge in Fresno, CA. Brett Dorian's legal career reflects a long and honorable commitment to public service. His dedication spans more than three decades, beginning with his service in the United States Air Force. Upon graduation from Boalt Hall, University of California, Berkeley Mr. Dorian helped and assisted the underprivileged in Central California as a legal aid lawyer. He then went on to a distinguished career in private practice where he specialized in bankruptcy law and served as a bankruptcy trustee for many years. In 1988, Judge Dorian was appointed to the United States Bankruptcy Court in Fresno. He served as a Bankruptcy Judge for almost 12 years. Judge Dorian served an eight county area in Central California. Judge Dorian has long been known as a thorough, dedicated and compassionate judge. Throughout his judicial career, he was diligent in carefully balancing the law in his cases and protecting the rights of those who appear before him. Judge Dorian has served the people of California as well as all Americans with great distinction. I am honored to pay tribute to him today and I encourage my fellow colleagues to join me in wishing Judge Brett Dorian continued happiness as he embarks on new endeavors.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, domestic violence is a national crisis that shatters the lives of millions of women across this country and tears at the fabric of this society. Despite increased efforts prompted by legislation such as the Violence Against Women Act, domestic violence continues to be the leading cause of injury to women across the country between the ages of 15 to 44. Furthermore, many of our health professionals today--those who are often the first in a position to recognize domestic violence, still do not have the proper training to assist these very vulnerable victims. Wonderful partnerships currently exist between many hospitals and graduate medical institutions and these partnerships should be encouraged in order to more effectively serve victims of domestic violence and prevent future violent attacks. For these reasons, I am reintroducing my bill, the Domestic Violence Identification and Referral Act, which would help ensure that medical professionals have the training they need to recognize and treat domestic violence, including spouse abuse, child abuse, and elder abuse. The bill would amend the Public Health Service Act to require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to give preference in awarding grants to institutions that train health professionals in identifying, treating, and referring patients who are victims of domestic violence to appropriate services. I encourage my colleagues to support this worthwhile legislation that would help in our continued fight to prevent domestic violence across this nation.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Senator again. This is a long, drawn-out fight. I hope we can work together in the future.

Mrs. BOXER. Will my friend yield?

Mrs. BOXER. I thank my friend.

Mrs. BOXER. Let me say to my friend, what I would like to do is state my understanding of the amendment by the two Senators from Oregon, and then ask my friend to comment if I am correct in my assumptions about this amendment. First, I appreciate the Senator's openness, working with me. The fact is I agree with my colleague; we on the west coast are going to have to work together. We need each other because there are some times when they will need power and we will have excess power. That may happen at some point. It has happened in the past. Certainly in this recent example we desperately need the power, and even though they had a hard time doing it, they came through for us. That is why we have thanked them. I say again a very big thank you on behalf of my constituency. As we all know, power is not a luxury item; you need it to live. If you are elderly and it is cold, you need it to stay warm. You need the lights. Certainly our jobs depend on electricity. So I do think the spirit with which my friends offer this amendment is not a spirit of anger but I think it is a spirit of fairness. I want to point out to my friend my understanding, and I hope when he comments on my remarks he will tell me if I am right, that there are 12, as we have read it, public power entities in California which will benefit from his amendment. In other words, it is not only Bonneville but, in essence, what I understand the Senator is saying is if public utilities stepped in and helped us during this period, the utilities should pay their bills. I think it is fair. I don't think we can say thank you very much and then let them be there hanging, without getting paid. I think it also says if the private sector was forced to sell power in addition to the public sector during that crisis period, in fact they will get paid, except they will not get paid back that portion that the FERC says was unfair and unreasonable. I really appreciate my friend including that language in his amendment because while I want to pay people a fair price, I do not think we should have to pay it if it is gouging. My friend was very quick to say he would, in fact, add that language. So my understanding is the purpose of this is to protect, in general, public utilities that are selling to California, to make sure they get paid; second, during that period of crisis, that any generator that was forced to sell, gets paid--except they do not get the part that may have been considered unjust and unreasonable charges. As I understand it, the public power entities that will benefit from this are: California Department of Water Resources, City of Anaheim, City of Azusa, City of Banning, City of Burbank, City of Glendale, City of Pasadena, City of Riverside, City of Vernon, Sacramento Municipal Utilities District, Silicon Valley Power, and Western Area Power Administration in Folsom. I have heard from these public utilities. They have told me, I say to my friend from Oregon, they are very frightened about not getting paid. While the big generators may be able to wait, these smaller public utilities really need this amendment so if the worst happens--and we certainly hope the worst will not happen--and there is a bankruptcy filing, these debts cannot be discharged. Let me just wrap it up in this fashion. I know there are disagreements. The Governor does not agree with my position on it, Senator Feinstein does not, others do. The fact of the matter is, I do not want to be known as a deadbeat State. California is too great to get that kind of reputation. I think what you are doing in this amendment is just assuring people that will not happen. I think it is important. It is the responsible way to proceed. Frankly, as I look at reports that show our private utilities--and this is a fact--taking some of the windfall that they got at the beginning of deregulation and giving it to parent companies and, therefore, shielding it, this is not a good thing. This isn't a fair thing. Why should a public utility that came to our rescue get punished because our private utilities took funds and essentially gave them over to a parent company? And now we cannot get at those funds. So on behalf of these public power entities in California that will benefit from this--and, frankly, in the name of fairness--I think the Wyden-Smith amendment is a fair amendment. I hope that it shows my friends that I do think we are in this together, that the west coast has to stick together. If this amendment is adopted--and I hope it is adopted--it is a signal that we are not saying, by virtue of this bill, that people can declare bankruptcy, utilities can declare bankruptcy, and run away from these bills they owe public utility companies and also some of the private generators during that period of the threatened brownouts. So I ask my colleague if he agrees with my interpretation of his amendment and for any other comments he might have.

Mrs. BOXER. May I just ask what the order is. Is there an amendment pending? Is Senator Wyden's amendment pending?

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, will my friend yield?

Mrs. BOXER. Let me first assure my friend that I was not intending to take any time. I want to thank him for his work on this issue. We know in this country one of our biggest problems is lack of health care and the fact that the burden of disease sometimes falls on the family to an amazing extent. If they are hit by hard times, it could well be because of these medical bills. People are driven into bankruptcy because of that. Then to have the double horror of having that not be exempted from the eventual resolution would be a real disaster for people. I thank the Senator not only for this amendment but for the many amendments that I will be supporting that he will be introducing to make this a bill that has at least a semblance of fairness. Right now, it hurts people. I am really waiting with anticipation for a moment when we do something that helps people. So far I haven't seen one thing we have done to help people. Yesterday, we repealed a measure that would have protected people in the workplace from repetitive motion illness. Does the Senator know when we are finally going to get something done, such as an education bill, that helps people? I haven't seen anything to date that actually does.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, over the last several years, Congress has had no good options when it comes to the certification of major drug producing and drug transit countries. This has been most apparent in our annual debate over the certification of Mexico's efforts in combating illicit drugs. Certifying Mexico has been very difficult to do in light of the upsetting statistics showing that Mexico is a major point of production and transit for drugs entering the United States. I have also been, and continue to be, concerned about the influence of powerful drug cartels in Mexico. In fact, in 1998, I joined 44 other Senators in voting in favor of decertifying Mexico. Nevertheless, I join many of my colleagues in the belief that the certification process does not work as it was intended. In some cases, what we have now is the worst of both worlds. The certification process subjects some of our closest allies and trading partners to an annual ritual of finger-pointing and humiliation rather than supporting mutual efforts to control illicit drugs. Today, Senator Gramm and I are reintroducing legislation which we hope will lead to a more honest and realistic way of addressing the international drug problem. By replacing confrontation with cooperation, we are encouraging nations to join the United States in fighting drugs while eliminating a process which strains our relations with allies such as Mexico. Our legislation would exempt from the certification process those countries that have a bilateral agreement with the United States. These agreements would have to address issues relating to the control of illicit drugs--including production, distribution, interdiction, demand reduction, border security, and cooperation among law enforcement agencies. This alternative will give both countries a way to work together for real goals with real results. Make no mistake, this will not give Mexico or any other country a free pass on fighting illicit drugs. On the contrary, our bill encourages the adoption of tough bilateral agreements. It specifically spells out issues that must be addressed in the agreements. We specifically require the adoption of ``timetables and objective and measurable standards.'' And we require semi-annual reports assessing the progress of both countries under the bilateral agreement. If progress is not made, the country returns to the annual certification process, which involves the possibility of sanctions. This issue is particularly important to those of us from border states, which are hit so hard by the traffic in illegal drugs. I look forward to working with my colleagues on a bipartisan and comprehensive solution.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, over the last several years, Congress has had no good options when it comes to the certification of major drug producing and drug transit countries. This has been most apparent in our annual debate over the certification of Mexico's efforts in combating illicit drugs. Certifying Mexico has been very difficult to do in light of the upsetting statistics showing that Mexico is a major point of production and transit for drugs entering the United States. I have also been, and continue to be, concerned about the influence of powerful drug cartels in Mexico. In fact, in 1998, I joined 44 other Senators in voting in favor of decertifying Mexico. Nevertheless, I join many of my colleagues in the belief that the certification process does not work as it was intended. In some cases, what we have now is the worst of both worlds. The certification process subjects some of our closest allies and trading partners to an annual ritual of finger-pointing and humiliation rather than supporting mutual efforts to control illicit drugs. Today, Senator Gramm and I are reintroducing legislation which we hope will lead to a more honest and realistic way of addressing the international drug problem. By replacing confrontation with cooperation, we are encouraging nations to join the United States in fighting drugs while eliminating a process which strains our relations with allies such as Mexico. Our legislation would exempt from the certification process those countries that have a bilateral agreement with the United States. These agreements would have to address issues relating to the control of illicit drugs--including production, distribution, interdiction, demand reduction, border security, and cooperation among law enforcement agencies. This alternative will give both countries a way to work together for real goals with real results. Make no mistake, this will not give Mexico or any other country a free pass on fighting illicit drugs. On the contrary, our bill encourages the adoption of tough bilateral agreements. It specifically spells out issues that must be addressed in the agreements. We specifically require the adoption of ``timetables and objective and measurable standards.'' And we require semi-annual reports assessing the progress of both countries under the bilateral agreement. If progress is not made, the country returns to the annual certification process, which involves the possibility of sanctions. This issue is particularly important to those of us from border states, which are hit so hard by the traffic in illegal drugs. I look forward to working with my colleagues on a bipartisan and comprehensive solution.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Small Business Electricity Emergency Relief Act. As the electricity crisis in California continues, small businesses are being hit hard by the increase in electricity prices. Across California, small business owners are opening their electricity bills only to be in a state of shock. In some cases they find that their bills have doubled, and sometimes even tripled. This has resulted in many small businesses having to close their doors and many more facing severe economic hardship. Under the Small Business Electricity Emergency Relief Act of 2001, the Small Business Administration could make loans to small businesses that have suffered economic injury due to a ``sharp and significant increase'' in their electricity bills. This legislation will provide California's small businesses with some much needed financial relief. This will greatly assist small businesses in the San Diego region that suffered dramatic increases in their electricity bills last summer. Small businesses represent the heart of our great state's thriving economy. This legislation will ensure that these small businesses are provided assistance to help keep their lights on.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Small Business Electricity Emergency Relief Act. As the electricity crisis in California continues, small businesses are being hit hard by the increase in electricity prices. Across California, small business owners are opening their electricity bills only to be in a state of shock. In some cases they find that their bills have doubled, and sometimes even tripled. This has resulted in many small businesses having to close their doors and many more facing severe economic hardship. Under the Small Business Electricity Emergency Relief Act of 2001, the Small Business Administration could make loans to small businesses that have suffered economic injury due to a ``sharp and significant increase'' in their electricity bills. This legislation will provide California's small businesses with some much needed financial relief. This will greatly assist small businesses in the San Diego region that suffered dramatic increases in their electricity bills last summer. Small businesses represent the heart of our great state's thriving economy. This legislation will ensure that these small businesses are provided assistance to help keep their lights on.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, as the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Control, and Risk Assessment, I am pleased to join my colleagues in sponsoring the Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act--a very important piece of legislation. Our nation's industrial history has left us with the unfortunate legacy of tens of thousands of abandoned sites that are contaminated with hazardous materials. Unfortunately, many of these sites are located in low-income, minority communities. The result is that this toxic legacy disproportionately impacts some of our most vulnerable and disempowered populations. For many of my constituents in places like Oakland, Anaheim, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Diego, and Stockton these polluted areas--or so-called ``brownfields''--are a blight on the community. They are dead zones that sit unused or only partially used, sometimes posing health hazards, sometimes merely eyesores. The idea behind the Brownfields Initiative is that those areas of light, or moderate, contamination should be restored for economic redevelopment, community use, or made into parks and greenways. In Oakland, for instance, an abandoned industrial brownfield site is going to be transformed into a large-scale, mixed use development area. It will include a pedestrian walkway, retail shops, child care facilities, medical care facilities, a senior center, and a branch of the Oakland Public Library. I'm proud to note that two California sites, in East Palo Alto and Los Angeles, have been selected by the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, to be ``Showcase Communities.'' These communities are at the cutting edge of the brownfields effort; their experiences will help us learn how to bring together federal, state, local, and non-governmental interests to address the brownfields problem. They will serve as a model for the rest of the Nation. While EPA has made important strides in the development of the Brownfields Initiative, there is much more than could be done. By authorizing increased funding for this program, clarifying some of the liability questions, and directing the program to the areas of greatest need, this legislation will help expand the scope of this program and elevate its visibility in the eyes of the American public. This legislation helps us set right some of the mistakes that were made in the past. And it illustrates what we have had to learn the hard way--that a prosperous economy and a healthy environment go hand in hand. By cleaning up these contaminated brownfields, we can protect public health, while at the same time curbing the devastating impact of urban sprawl on our environment. Encouraging the clean up of these contaminated properties will also mean new jobs and greater economic growth for the communities that need it most. We owe it to our children to leave them an environment that is cleaner and healthier than the one we have inherited. This bill will help take us in that direction.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, as the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Control, and Risk Assessment, I am pleased to join my colleagues in sponsoring the Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act--a very important piece of legislation. Our nation's industrial history has left us with the unfortunate legacy of tens of thousands of abandoned sites that are contaminated with hazardous materials. Unfortunately, many of these sites are located in low-income, minority communities. The result is that this toxic legacy disproportionately impacts some of our most vulnerable and disempowered populations. For many of my constituents in places like Oakland, Anaheim, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Diego, and Stockton these polluted areas--or so-called ``brownfields''--are a blight on the community. They are dead zones that sit unused or only partially used, sometimes posing health hazards, sometimes merely eyesores. The idea behind the Brownfields Initiative is that those areas of light, or moderate, contamination should be restored for economic redevelopment, community use, or made into parks and greenways. In Oakland, for instance, an abandoned industrial brownfield site is going to be transformed into a large-scale, mixed use development area. It will include a pedestrian walkway, retail shops, child care facilities, medical care facilities, a senior center, and a branch of the Oakland Public Library. I'm proud to note that two California sites, in East Palo Alto and Los Angeles, have been selected by the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, to be ``Showcase Communities.'' These communities are at the cutting edge of the brownfields effort; their experiences will help us learn how to bring together federal, state, local, and non-governmental interests to address the brownfields problem. They will serve as a model for the rest of the Nation. While EPA has made important strides in the development of the Brownfields Initiative, there is much more than could be done. By authorizing increased funding for this program, clarifying some of the liability questions, and directing the program to the areas of greatest need, this legislation will help expand the scope of this program and elevate its visibility in the eyes of the American public. This legislation helps us set right some of the mistakes that were made in the past. And it illustrates what we have had to learn the hard way--that a prosperous economy and a healthy environment go hand in hand. By cleaning up these contaminated brownfields, we can protect public health, while at the same time curbing the devastating impact of urban sprawl on our environment. Encouraging the clean up of these contaminated properties will also mean new jobs and greater economic growth for the communities that need it most. We owe it to our children to leave them an environment that is cleaner and healthier than the one we have inherited. This bill will help take us in that direction.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, within 48 hours of assuming the Presidency, President Bush issued a policy that will hurt the women of the world. A policy that takes us back to the 1980s, rather than ahead to the new century. His policy, the Mexico City gag rule, cuts U.S. funding to any organization that uses its own funds to provide abortion services. It even cuts U.S. funds if the organization uses its own funds to simply counsel women on all their options which include abortions. As a result, many organizations will be forced to either limit their services or simply close their doors to women across the world. And, this will cause women and families increased misery and death. The current facts are chilling. Approximately 78,000 women throughout the world die each year as a result of unsafe abortions. At least one-fourth of all unsafe abortions in the world are to girls aged 15-19. By 2015, contraceptive needs in developing countries will grow by more than 40 percent. Make no mistake, the Mexican city gag rule will restrict family planning, not abortions. The media has mistakenly portrayed the Mexico City policy. I think we need to be clear of what this policy does and does not do: It does not change the fact that no United States funds can be used for abortion services. That is already law, and has been since 1973. It does restrict foreign organizations in ways that would be unconstitutional here at home. It is puzzling for me to understand how anyone could fail to realize that family planning is crucial to preventing abortions. According to Population Action International, research shows that higher levels of contraception use are associated with lower reliance on abortion. For example, the recent increased availability of modern family planning methods has already resulted in a 33 percent drop in the abortion rate in Russia and a 60 percent reduction in Hungary. Additionally, we know that young girls between the ages of 15 and 19 are twice as likely to die in childbirth as older mothers. Talk about a policy that is cruel to girls and young women--this is it. Family planning can significantly improve the health of these girls and young women by teaching them to postpone childbearing until the healthiest times in their life, which would in turn prevent abortions. However, as a result of the harsh penalties imposed by the Mexico City gag rule, family planning groups will not be able to adequately counsel these desperate women. Picture a woman who has already walked sometimes half a day to get to the nearest clinic. How can we expect these clinics to then tell this woman who is seeking services on her own volition, that they cannot counsel her on the full array of her legal options when there is no other clinic within a hundred miles of them? Additionally, the Mexico City policy goes against a fundamental tenet of American society . . . freedom of speech. That is why today in the Senate today, I am introducing the bipartisan ``Global Democracy Promotion Act.'' The Boxer-Snowe bill aims to overturn the draconian restrictions place upon international family planning programs put in place by President Bush on January 22. Our bill will allow these organizations to continue to provide legal family planning services without needlessly restricting their funds. Family planning organizations should not be prevented from using their own privately raised funds to provide legal abortion services, including counseling and referral services. These groups should not be forced to relinquish their right to free speech in order to receive United States funding. This type of restriction is un-American and undermines our key foreign policy goal of supporting democracy worldwide. The true bipartisan consensus is that family planning organizations should be supported, not punished, for helping women in need. We hope President Bush will change his mind and reverse his order. If not, we will work hard to overturn it. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, within 48 hours of assuming the Presidency, President Bush issued a policy that will hurt the women of the world. A policy that takes us back to the 1980s, rather than ahead to the new century. His policy, the Mexico City gag rule, cuts U.S. funding to any organization that uses its own funds to provide abortion services. It even cuts U.S. funds if the organization uses its own funds to simply counsel women on all their options which include abortions. As a result, many organizations will be forced to either limit their services or simply close their doors to women across the world. And, this will cause women and families increased misery and death. The current facts are chilling. Approximately 78,000 women throughout the world die each year as a result of unsafe abortions. At least one-fourth of all unsafe abortions in the world are to girls aged 15-19. By 2015, contraceptive needs in developing countries will grow by more than 40 percent. Make no mistake, the Mexican city gag rule will restrict family planning, not abortions. The media has mistakenly portrayed the Mexico City policy. I think we need to be clear of what this policy does and does not do: It does not change the fact that no United States funds can be used for abortion services. That is already law, and has been since 1973. It does restrict foreign organizations in ways that would be unconstitutional here at home. It is puzzling for me to understand how anyone could fail to realize that family planning is crucial to preventing abortions. According to Population Action International, research shows that higher levels of contraception use are associated with lower reliance on abortion. For example, the recent increased availability of modern family planning methods has already resulted in a 33 percent drop in the abortion rate in Russia and a 60 percent reduction in Hungary. Additionally, we know that young girls between the ages of 15 and 19 are twice as likely to die in childbirth as older mothers. Talk about a policy that is cruel to girls and young women--this is it. Family planning can significantly improve the health of these girls and young women by teaching them to postpone childbearing until the healthiest times in their life, which would in turn prevent abortions. However, as a result of the harsh penalties imposed by the Mexico City gag rule, family planning groups will not be able to adequately counsel these desperate women. Picture a woman who has already walked sometimes half a day to get to the nearest clinic. How can we expect these clinics to then tell this woman who is seeking services on her own volition, that they cannot counsel her on the full array of her legal options when there is no other clinic within a hundred miles of them? Additionally, the Mexico City policy goes against a fundamental tenet of American society . . . freedom of speech. That is why today in the Senate today, I am introducing the bipartisan ``Global Democracy Promotion Act.'' The Boxer-Snowe bill aims to overturn the draconian restrictions place upon international family planning programs put in place by President Bush on January 22. Our bill will allow these organizations to continue to provide legal family planning services without needlessly restricting their funds. Family planning organizations should not be prevented from using their own privately raised funds to provide legal abortion services, including counseling and referral services. These groups should not be forced to relinquish their right to free speech in order to receive United States funding. This type of restriction is un-American and undermines our key foreign policy goal of supporting democracy worldwide. The true bipartisan consensus is that family planning organizations should be supported, not punished, for helping women in need. We hope President Bush will change his mind and reverse his order. If not, we will work hard to overturn it. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I wonder if you would be so kind as to tell me when I am down to 5 minutes remaining in my 25 minutes.

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

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, we are faced with a tremendous choice in America, and that is whether we want to continue with policies that led to an 8-year recovery of our economy which was flat on its back and go with those policies of fiscal responsibility and fairness and investment or go back to the days of what was called trickle-down economics, where the very wealthy got the most, the rest of us got very little, the deficits soared, the debt soared, our country was in trouble. I represent, along with Senator Feinstein, the largest State in the Nation. We have 34 million people. We had a recession that was second to none. It was the worst recession since the Great Depression. It took us a long time to come out of that. We had double-digit unemployment. We had a terrible situation. But because we followed, in this Government, finally, a policy of fiscal restraint, we got back on our feet and people have done very well. That is why this discussion about the proposed tax cut by our new President, versus the tax cut that will be supported by the Democrats, is such an important conversation. Last week, President Bush submitted a tax cut plan to the Congress. It was not detailed, but it was a plan. It was like a brochure in which he laid out his vision of a tax cut. He outlined in it a $1.6 trillion tax cut plan. I have to say, and I hope people will listen, this tax cut is not compassionate and it is not conservative. We remember when President Bush ran he ran as a compassionate conservative. So we get his very first proposal--actually it wasn't his first. His first one was to interfere with family planning throughout the world and put a gag rule on international family planning groups that help poor women get birth control. But for this purpose, it is certainly his first fiscal policy. It is neither compassionate nor is it conservative. What do I mean by that? First, it is not compassionate because it benefits the very wealthy instead of the 99 percent, everyone else; that is, those in the middle class, either lower or upper. It helps the very wealthy. His plan is not conservative because it does not do the smart, conservative thing of being cautious with the projected surplus. I said ``projected surplus.'' As Democratic leader Daschle has said, these projections are like the weather forecasts: Don't count on them because they change. They are not dependable. So the conservative thing to do is to have a rainy day fund, if you will. Let me go into detail on why I say this plan is not compassionate. I have told you it benefits the wealthy. Mr. President, 31 percent of all families with children would receive nothing. If you are among the bottom 20 percent of Americans in terms of income, you get an average cut of $42. This is the way the tax cut of President Bush breaks down, and you tell me if it is compassionate. If you are in the lowest 20 percent of earners; that is, earning less than $13,600, you will get an average tax cut of $42. Let me make that even worse. The income range averages at $8,600, so at $8,600 a year, you get back $42 in your pocket on average. The next quintile is $13,600 to $24,400. That is an average of $18,800 a year. They get an average tax cut of $187. A person earning $31,000 gets $453 back. If you earn an average of $50,000, you get back an average of $876. Between $64,000 and $130,000, you get back $1,400. Then, if you earn an average of $163,000, you get $2,200, approximately. But hold on to your chairs. Hold on to your chairs. If you earn $319,000 or more--the average income is $915,000-- you get back $46,000 every year. So how can anyone say that is compassionate? A person earning $50,000 gets $876 back. A person earning $319,000, average $915,000, gets back $46,000. I don't know how anybody could say that is compassionate. We are going to show you another way to look at what people get back because I think it is a startling thing to see. If you are in that wealthiest bracket, here is a beautiful new kitchen. It really is quite nice. You can get this kitchen for $50,000. That is about what you would get back if you earned that $900,000. It is beautiful. It has a granite top, wood; it is quite lovely--a new kitchen. But what happens if you don't earn that? You could afford a pan. It is a nice pan. What do we figure this costs? This is a $200 pan. It is a very nice pan. But this person can get a kitchen; you can get a pan. This is not compassion, and it is not fair and it is not right. Let's show some other examples. We had the Lexus and the muffler, and I thought that was good, but I thought we needed some more. Here is a beautiful swimming pool. We are told a swimming pool such as this costs about $46,000. With the Bush tax cut, when it phases in, if you are in that million- dollar range, you could put one of these babies in your house every year, by the way. But if you are at that bottom level, the bottom 60 percent, average that out and that is under $39,000, you could get an inflatable bath tub. How is that compassionate? How is that fair? We have some more to show you. This looks pretty good. This is a yacht. According to our figures, $45,000 gets you this yacht. It looks very good. If you get $1 million a year, you are going to get that kind of tax cut. But if you are in the bottom 60 percent, you can get this little rowboat. I don't even know if you get the oars with it. This costs $195. Do we have any more of those? I think you get the idea. But we are going to show it to you in a different way. If you are in that top bracket of 1 percent, which is the one that gets 43 percent of the benefits of Bush's tax cut, you get 43 percent of the benefit. Every single day when this tax cut is phased in, you get $126. That is pretty good. If you are in the bottom percent with an average of $30,000, you get 62 cents every day. This is another way to show how compassionate this tax cut is. I figure we will make it even a little more stark for you. If you get back $126 a day in a tax cut, you and your significant other can go to a beautiful restaurant, have a little candlelight, order the best in the house and a good bottle of California wine, I hope. It is pretty neat. If you are in that bottom 60 percent, it is tomato soup. There is nothing wrong with tomato soup. But it is not fair. This is not fair. You say: Well, wait a minute. Didn't the President say the people at the very top pay most of the taxes? Yes. They are getting back 43 percent in the tax cut of George Bush. But don't they pay most of the taxes? Wrong. It is 21 percent of the taxes. The wealthy top 1 percent pay 21 percent of taxes. They are getting 43 percent of the benefit of the Bush tax plan. I just cannot imagine how someone who runs as a compassionate person can come up with a situation where you can get a can of tomato soup if you earn $30,000, and take your significant other to the restaurant every single night and eat out, not to mention the kitchen versus the pan, and all of the rest. No. This is not compassionate, nor is it conservative. We see that this is done for a reason. The stated reason is we are going to stimulate this economy. As I understand it, there was a hearing today on that. There is a lot of dispute about whether or not a tax break to the wealthiest people actually stimulates the economy. It was tried back in the eighties. Do you know what it stimulated? Deficits as far as the eye could see. The next time I come out on the floor I will have some charts that show what happened to the deficit when trickle-down economics was the centerpiece in the 1980s. It was a failure, an abject failure. Do you know what trickled down? Misery, recession, and we had terrible unemployment. We were paying so much interest on the debt that we didn't have any money to invest in our people. Yet we have a plan from someone who says he is compassionate and conservative that just will, in fact, set us up for failure. If I have anything to say about it in this Chamber, I want to talk about it. And the Democrats are going to talk about it. Do we want a tax cut? Yes. As Charlie Rangel on the other side said, we want the biggest tax cut we can afford. Do we want to make sure the people who need that tax cut the most get it? Yes. That is the kind of proposal we are going to have. In this particular proposal, the compassionate President Bush does not make the child care credit refundable. If you really are at the bottom of the barrel, you are earning maybe $20,000, or even less, you don't pay any income taxes. You don't get any help with your child care. If we are going to give a child care credit, which a lot of us want to do, let's make it refundable so people can have that effect and ease the burden. I have an interesting commentary I would like to read. Mr. President, this is a Republican named Kevin Phillips. He is very respected. As far as I know, he has been a Republican all of his life. He is the editor and publisher of the American Political Report. He is a best selling author who worked for the Nixon administration. I want to stress that what I am about to read to you did not come from Barbara Boxer, a Democrat from California, but it is coming from Kevin Phillips, a Republican who worked for the Nixon administration. I think he has some good credentials to criticize or comment on their Bush tax cut. Let's see if he thinks it is compassionate and conservative. I am quoting every word directly from his editorial: Although president less than a month, George W. Bush has already achieved a historic first. He has become the first president elected without carrying the popular vote, to propose a far-reaching giant tax-cut bill on behalf of his supporters and his big campaign contributors. Parenthetically, let me note that Kevin Phillips is calling this Bush tax cut ``a far-reaching giant tax-cut bill on behalf of his supporters and his big campaign contributors.'' None of the three previous presidents elected without a popular margin, John Quincy Adams, Rutherford Hayes and Benjamin Harrison, had the temerity to try anything like this kind of revenue reduction. It hasn't bothered Bush, though. It hasn't stopped him that a majority of Americans cast their vote for the two candidates, Al Gore and Ralph Nader, who mocked his tax package. Indeed, both did more than oppose it. They argued rightly that it was a massive giveaway, and that 30 to 40 percent of the dollar benefits went to the top 1 percent of US taxpayers, to just one million families. I am worried about the other 279 millions of families. To quote Mr. Phillips further: This is an illegitimate tax bill for two reasons. The first is that a president selected in Bush's manner has no mandate or standing to undertake such far-reaching legislation. The second illegitimacy, which would tar this legislation even if it was offered by a president with a full claim to office, is the extent of revenue that it gives away--not at first, but as its $1.6 trillion worth of provisions unfold over the next decade. That's more than a trillion dollars that future Congresses could spend on debt reduction, on payroll tax reductions, Social Security, education or prescription drug coverage. Instead, these dollars will be spent by recipients in considerable measure on $100,000 cars, $5 million homes and $10 million financial speculations. Indeed, one of the biggest individual tax giveaways is particularly ironic. Here I'm talking about the Bush proposal to phase out the federal inheritance tax, which in earlier days owed much of its introduction to a pair of Republican presidents picked by voters, not by a 5-to-4 Supreme Court decision, whose names were Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt. To now end the inheritance tax, as opposed to increasing its exemption to $2 million or $3 million, threatens a cost not only in billions of dollars but in the weakening of American democracy. In the wake of the American Revolution, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and many others agreed that U.S. law would and did end the British legal provisions that allowed the great landed estates to descend intact from generation to generation. The new United States would not, they say, have an aristocracy of inheritance. The Bush tax bill raises exactly that prospect. It threatens to perpetuate the $8-trillion wealth buildup of the 1990s through a new aristocracy of inheritance on a scale that Washington and Jefferson could never have imagined. For such a proposal to come from a President who owes his own office to inheritance rather than popular election is the crowning illegitimacy of them all. This is tough stuff. This is tough language. This is tough criticism. It is given by a Republican who cares about a number of things, being conservative and being fair.

Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Chair. I hope everyone will look at that Kevin Phillips commentary I just read into the Record. It is very instructive. I have told my colleagues why this is not a compassionate tax cut. It ignores 99 percent of the taxpayers, essentially, and gives almost everything, or way too much, to the very few of the wealthiest people in this country, the biggest break going to those who earn close to $1 million a year. Let me tell my colleagues why it also is not compassionate. It is so large, it is so big, it is so huge, there will not be enough left over for the things we need to do to protect Social Security so that these kids who are Senate pages now will have a Social Security system, to add a prescription drug benefit to Medicare that everyone seems to want. We don't have the money for that. To really invest in education, in early education, in after school, in school construction, and in smaller class sizes, we are not going to have money for that, nor to clean up our environment, to fix up our parklands--we could go on--to have a decent air traffic control system that is safe. It is not compassionate because it takes from that. What about it not being conservative? That is something we have to talk about. The fact is, not only will we not have money for the priorities the American people want, but the plan leaves nothing to pay down the debt over the long run. That is not conservative. Show me one family who does not think about a rainy day: Gee, honey, what if something goes wrong next year? Maybe we should save a few dollars. Gee, I am a little worried, Tommy doesn't look so great. Maybe we need to spend a little of our savings on a second opinion and take him to a doctor outside the HMO. Thank goodness we saved a little bit. What about the families now across this country who are looking at their natural gas bills--the natural gas that heats their home? They are in shock at seeing a twofold increase, a threefold increase. Those families are going to have to save from somewhere to pay those bills. We have a 10-year boondoggle tax cut that leaves nothing for emergencies, that counts on forecasts that are going to be as crazy as the weather forecasts. I am hopeful that we can get some bipartisanship here. I find it amazing that only a couple of my Republican friends have said this tax cut is too big. I am happy they have. But where is the chorus from people on that side who say they are conservative? How can a true conservative go back to deficits as far as the eye can see? How can a true conservative go back to debt as far as the eye can see, to force our children to inherit a debt and have to pay a billion dollars a day or more to finance that debt? That is not conservative. Let's go back to the drawing boards, I say to the President. Let's come up with a compassionate and a conservative budget, one that rests on a few foundations that I will talk about. I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 10 more minutes.

Mrs. BOXER. When we talk about our budget and the tax cuts that are part of it, we should have a foundation to that budget, a foundation to that tax cut. I think it should show three pillars. One is fairness. Let us be fair to the people. Let's make sure that as we look at the size of the tax cuts, where they go, what we spend, what we invest in, that we are fair. The greatest thing we have in our country is a very strong middle class. If we lose that middle class, we will be weak. Yet if we look at some of the numbers, it appears that the gap between the rich and poor is in fact growing. That is not healthy for anyone. That is not good for a society, if it gets too big. What we find out is we have people who have lost hope, who may turn to drugs, alcohol. We know what happens when things turn bad and they are not as productive as they can be. They are not living up to their potential because maybe they cannot even afford college tuition. Fairness has to be what we are about. Values: What do we value in this country? Do we not value a balanced approach, fairness to our people and investing in our people, making sure that our children are healthy; that they have a good, free, public education system that is strong; that we create jobs; that we have job training; that we don't turn our backs on our senior citizens; that we have safe streets? That is a value. Right now we have senior citizens who are under a lot of stress. Not only do they have to meet their bills for their prescription drugs--and the good news here is, there are so many good prescription drugs today that keep people moving and feeling good, but they are expensive. We need a prescription drug benefit. That should be one of our values. Strengthening Social Security should be one of our values. So it is fairness, as we look at a tax cut and spending. It is values, about our families and what they need and how we can help them and make life better for them. It is responsibility to the next generation of youngsters. Yes, we can have a tax cut. It could be a large tax cut. It will fit into the budget. It will be fair. It will have values. It will be responsible. And we could be proud that we are keeping this country on the right track and not turning off on some detour that says: Deficits again, debt again, no money for our seniors, no more safe streets. That is not the right path to take. A lot of people have said to the Democrats: Show us your plan. What is your plan? We are going to have a plan. It is going to be a good plan. It is going to be based on these values: Fairness, a sense of values, and responsibility--three pillars. It is going to be specific as soon as we see President Bush's budget numbers so we know what he is cutting to pay for this tax cut. We have to take a look at that. And we will respond. I am reaching my hand across to the other side of the aisle at this point. I say to my colleagues, I heard you so many times on this floor: We need a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. We need to pay down the debt. These deficits are killing us. We know, if we take a look at this projected surplus and we are conservative about it, we will do just fine. If we look at our values as a society and we are compassionate, we will be just fine. I will close with a quote from Alan Greenspan who testified today. He said: Given the euphoria surrounding the surpluses, it is not difficult to imagine the hard-earned fiscal restraint developed in recent years rapidly dissipating. We need to resist those policies that could readily resurrect the deficits of the past and the fiscal imbalances that followed in their wake. So today I have quoted two Republicans I admire--Alan Greenspan, telling us to watch out, then be conservative on this tax cut; and Kevin Phillips, who is warning us the Bush tax plan could lead to a country that isn't one we will be that proud of because it will transfer so much of what we have to the very top of the income scale, forgetting about the great middle class. So I am very hopeful we can come together as the Senate, as compassionate people, as fiscally responsible people, and that we can fashion a budget that includes a tax cut we can afford, that includes spending priorities our families need, that thinks about our kids, that takes the burden of debt off their shoulders. I think if we can do that, we can add a tremendous amount to this debate. I think President Bush has said he is interested in working with the Senate. I think he has reached out to us and said let's work together. Well, I am ready to do that. I tell him, if he would come up with a budget that is compassionate and conservative, I will be there right at his side. If he does not, I will work to make it so. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Thank you so much.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask--if no one is here at 11--whether the Democrats could speak until the Republicans come at that time.