Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I remember that, and I remember serving on the Budget Committee and listening to these remarks in the committee by Senator Phil Gramm from Texas predicting the worst. What did he say?

Mrs. BOXER. How about 22 million new jobs instead of 100,000 lost jobs?

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Out of the 10 minutes I originally had, how much time do I have remaining?

Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent for 60 seconds to recap what I said before the time goes to Senator Durbin.

Mrs. BOXER. Let me take us back from before the unanimous consent request was made and kind of summarize where I was going. We had a statement by Governor Bush. The statement was that he wanted to see all of those peacekeeping troops come home from the Balkans. He said we should not be involved in peacekeeping, only in fighting. As a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, I am concerned and clearly our NATO allies are concerned. Lord Robertson, the NATO Secretary General, again, has said this could undermine our relationship with our NATO alliance. The Washington Post says one European Ambassador was quoted as saying: If the U.S. says it will not perform certain tasks, then the basic consensus of NATO begins to unravel. Now, I remember being very surprised, because I was at the second debate, when Governor Bush made the point that we were carrying the load in the Balkans in terms of the peacekeeping troops. I knew that was incorrect. The fact is, American troops are no more than 20 percent of the total. American aid represents no more than 20 percent of what is being provided to Bosnia and Kosovo. I would hate to see us walk away from peacekeeping and tell everyone we are the fighters; and then have our allies say: OK, you do the fighting; we do the peacekeeping. It is of great concern to me. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record some editorials that have been written on this subject by the New York Times, the Washington Post, and USA Today.

Mrs. BOXER. I am going to read a little bit from those editorials when I can find my glasses, which is an important thing. Here they are. When I started out in politics, I did not need these reading glasses. So that shows you how long I have been around. This is from the Washington Post: The Balkans are at peace; democracy is sprouting almost everywhere; even the apparently invulnerable Slobodan Milosevic has been knocked from his perch. Of course, many problems remain, the gains are fragile and, yes, U.S. troops will be needed for some time. But surely helping democracy take root throughout Europe is worth the modest price of that modest deployment [of peacekeeping troops]. The New York Times says that George Bush's adviser's proposal is misguided. That is the proposal to say that we will no longer participate in peacekeeping. The job of securing peace in Bosnia and Kosovo is far from complete. The American share of the peacekeeping has already been substantially reduced. Finally, the NATO alliance has been built on a concept of shared risk that is inconsistent with a total withdrawal of American ground forces from Balkan peacekeeping. Now, we know that America's share, they say, of peacekeeping responsibilities is steadily reducing. There are now only 11,400 American troops in the Balkans, about one-fifth of the NATO total. When NATO first went into Bosnia, about a third of its 60,000 troops were Americans. Balkan peacekeeping costs [are only] 1 percent of the Pentagon's . . . budget. . . . Asking Europe to accept a total withdrawal of American ground forces from the Balkans needlessly challenges some of the basic assumptions of [our] western military alliance. Our Western military alliance has served us well. Why would we now-- when we see the tinderbox over in the Middle East--come up with a plan that would shake up our allies, that would worry our friends? This is the time not to make those kinds of proposals. And those proposals themselves are dangerous for the world. I will also quote from USA Today. So you are seeing a whole number of newspapers coming out against this Bush plan. They say: The deeper risk extends beyond the Balkans to the overall U.S. role in NATO. Since NATO's formation in the wake of World War II, it has served to quiet the continent's longstanding rivalries. Weakening U.S. leadership would set off a counterproductive race to fill the gap, with unfavorable consequences for U.S. interests. I have to believe this kind of a policy--either it was not thought out or it is a radical departure from what has worked for us not only through the cold war but after the cold war. Governor Bush says we can't do all this alone. And I agree with him; we can't do all this alone. But the bizarre thing is, he is pulling us out of a situation-- or would want to, if he were President--where we are only about 20 percent of the force. This is an example of the way we ought to integrate all of the responsibilities of the various allies. I find it amazing that this policy would come up at this time when we have the world in such a precarious position as we look at what is happening in the Middle East. So in any event, in closing, I will make these points in two areas: education and foreign policy. I think there are some interesting new developments the American people ought to look at. One, we have a candidate for President, who is the Governor of Texas, who is using Texas as the model. We just learned that Texas is almost dead last as a place people would want to raise their children. That is an unbiased report that came out. We have a Rand study, which is a study that Bush himself has cited, which says these kids in Texas are simply not making it. We now have this foreign policy fiasco. While the Republicans want to look at what went on in 1995 between Russia and America, we now realize that what we ought to be looking at is this latest proposal by Governor Bush, and to try to debunk it, that would say we ought to pull our peacekeeping troops out, that America should not even have a role in peacekeeping. It is rattling our NATO allies. Again, NATO has served us well. Why? Because we all cooperate and we work together and we come up with plans together. And to have this, if you will, ``Molotov cocktail'' from George Bush just thrown out-- unprovoked--to shake up our NATO allies, and say, ``We are not going to do peacekeeping; we are going to do fighting,'' I say to this Senate that I do not like that division of responsibilities, where America does all the fighting and our NATO allies do the peacekeeping. I do not like shaking up our allies at this time. I think it shows a certain recklessness, a certain lack of experience, a certain misunderstanding of history of what it has been like for us to build these alliances. As a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, I am very concerned by this proposal. I believe it will have a very negative impact. I am someone who has fought long and hard for burdensharing. I have offered a number of amendments in the House and the Senate asserting that it is important our allies carry their fair share. I will go on record as saying 80 percent of the troops in the Balkans is a fair share; 80 percent of our commitment in the Balkans is being paid by the Europeans, 20 percent by the Americans. That is good. That is a fair share. That is working. To throw this kind of a proposal out there at this time when the Middle East is in crisis, when we need our allies at the table, when we need good relationships with our friends, shows a certain irresponsibility and riskiness upon which the American people are not going to look very kindly. And certainly, while the Foreign Relations Committee is beating up on the Vice President 2 weeks before an election about Russia-United States relations; our problem today isn't Russia-United States relations; our problem today is trying to do the best we can with our allies in the world to end some of these tragedies going on in the Middle East, to work for a new Yugoslavia that is democratic, to make sure we build on Madeleine Albright's seeming success in North Korea where, by the way, we have 37,000 troops. Maybe my friend from Illinois knows this. I did not hear any comments about pulling out troops from the Koreas, but maybe that is his next proposal, where we have kept the peace and stability.

Mrs. BOXER. I am happy to yield.

Mrs. BOXER. I thank my friend. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Durbin be given 5 minutes following the completion of my time.

Mrs. BOXER. I was just making sure that Senator Durbin would be recognized for the next 5 minutes.

Mrs. BOXER. We have taken longer deciding who is going to talk than we have on what we really want to say. I will sum up my points today. I think two issues are coming to the floor in this election. Education is one of them. We have the Governor of Texas saying his kids in Texas are doing great. We learned today that was based on a State test, not a national test. So that is something we have to look at. We have a new study showing that Texas is one of the worst places to raise a child. That is from another objective, nonpartisan study. Now we have a hearing going on in Foreign Relations beating up on Vice President Gore for something that happened in 1995, when not one Republican ever complained about it until 2 weeks before the election, when Governor Bush has now made a proposal that in essence threw a bomb into NATO--figuratively, not literally--and our NATO allies are worried and concerned that suddenly we have on the table a proposal--not very well thought out, in my view--that would drastically change NATO and would say, in essence, that the United States will be the fighters, someone else will be the peacekeepers. I think it is more dangerous for our people to take that on alone. It is a big worry I have. It shows in this sensitive time why we need proven, effective, experienced leadership in the White House. We don't want to have someone coming in and throwing this kind of proposal into NATO. We need our NATO allies now more than ever. We have great opportunities for peace in the world. We are not going to make them come true if we dissect NATO and destroy it.

Mrs. BOXER. I ask that Senator Durbin be given 5 minutes when I conclude my time.

Mrs. BOXER. If I may restate my unanimous consent request, understanding that we have 24 minutes remaining, I would appreciate it if Senator Durbin could follow my remarks so we have some train of thought. Then we can take the next 10 minutes from the Republican time, if they would like to use it. I don't think Senator Durbin has a problem; I don't have a problem.

Mrs. BOXER. I am happy to.

Mrs. BOXER. I am happy to do that.

Mrs. BOXER

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

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, are we in morning business?

Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized for 10 minutes.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am proud to introduce the California Reclaimed Water Act for the 21st century. As California takes its first steps into the 21st century, it is undeniable that the quality of water, the quantity of water, and the availability of water are among the most formidable challenges to our 34 million citizens and the many diverse regions of our fast growing state. Our farmers, urban dwellers, sport and commercial fishing interests, tribes, mountain communities and environmentalists all seek a more reliable and a more certain water future. Recycled water plays an important part in meeting California's water needs today and will play an even more important role in the next several decades. California is making significant progress in its effort to put its water house in order. Between March and June of this year, two major water policy initiatives occurred in California. On March 7, 2000, California voters overwhelmingly approved a $2 billion water bond. Further, on August 28, 2000, Governor Gray Davis and Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt signed the landmark CALFED water agreement which broadly sets a course for California's water future. Water recycling and reuse is a major element of both these new actions and policies. The existing federal program to support water recycling is found in title XVI, Public Law 102-575 and was enacted in 1992. The law authorized recycling projects and studies throughout California, including in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Jose, and San Francisco. The law also authorized projects in Colorado and Arizona. The 1992 law also called for a special Southern California Comprehensive Water Reclamation and Reuse study to investigate how the use of recycled water could relieve water supply pressure in California. That study is being prepared by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, State of California's Department of Water Resources, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Central Basin and West Basin Municipal Water Districts, City of Los Angeles, City of San Diego, San Diego Water Authority, Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority and the South Orange County Reclamation Authority. It should soon be completed. Expressing continued support for the title XVI program, in 1996 Congress authorized a second group of water recycling projects in California, from Watsonville to Ventura County, and from Pasadena to Orange County, plus individual projects in Utah, New Mexico, Texas and Nevada. The legislation I introduce today builds upon these congressional efforts, voter ballot initiatives and agency studies. The bill authorizes a series of title XVI water recycling projects and directs the Secretary of the Interior to work with various water districts throughout the State including: Castaic Lake Water Agency Reclaimed Water Project Lake County, Clear Lake Basin Water Reuse Project East Bay Municipal Utility District and the San Ramon Serves District Recycled Water Project Inland Empire Utilities Agency, Inland Empire Regional Water Recycling Project in San Bernardino County San Pablo Baylands Water Reuse Project in Sonoma, Napa, Marin and Solano Counties State of California Water Recycling Program Regional Brine Lines (salt removal) in Southern California, the San Francisco Bay and the Santa Clara Valley areas Chino Basin Watermaster, Inland Empire Utilities Agency, Western Municipal Water District and the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority for the Lower Chino Dairy Area Desalination Demonstration and Reclamation Project. Additional research, in cooperation with the WateReuse Foundation, is mandated and two previously authorized projects, one in Los Angeles and the other in the San Gabriel Basin, are modified. Finally, my bill mandates that the proposed projects be coordinated with the CALFED Program. Taken together, these projects will have the capacity to produce hundreds of thousands of acre feet of water. The Inland Empire Regional Water Recycling Project, for example, is designed to yield up to 66,000 acre feet of recycled water annually. Each acre foot of recycled water reduces the demand for imported water from the Bay-Delta and the Colorado River. Inland proposed to ``drought proof'' its region with these and related investments. Beneficiaries of these projects and these investments include the immediate service areas, downstream neighbors, and towns and communities throughout California. Water recycling projects in California also reduce the demand for imported water, be it from the San Francisco Bay-Delta or the Colorado River. Recycling and reuse investments in Southern California have the effect of helping the Bay- Delta by reducing demand for additional imported Bay-Delta water. These same investments benefit California's neighboring states up and down the Colorado River. As more water is developed locally, pressure is reduced for imports. Presently, negotiations are underway between California and the other six states of the Colorado River Basin. California is being asked to reduce the amount of water it takes from the Colorado River. In fact, as a result of these talks, California faces a reduction of some 800,000 acre feet. The water recycling projects proposed in this legislation can help California meet this challenge. As a result, Utah, Colorado, Nevada and Arizona also benefit from these programs. Unlike traditional Bureau of Reclamation water projects, these water recycling projects require a majority of funds to be locally provided. Consistent with title XVI limitations on recycling projects as authorized in 1992 and 1996, the projects proposed in my bill require 75 percent local funding. Federal cost sharing is limited to 25 percent. Moreover, this bill specifies that none of the funds can be used for annual operation and maintenance costs. Those annual expenses are the responsibility of the local water districts or management agency. The water recycling projects authorized by my bill are part of a long-term solution to some of California's most difficult challenges. Water recycling is not the only solution. But, water recycling and water reuse can play a significant part as these projects can be designed, built, and placed on line within a short time. This bill helps communities throughout California. This bill helps communities in Southern California, reducing pressure on the Bay-Delta water supplies. And, this bill respects our neighboring states up and down the Colorado River. I ask unanimous consent that this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I will be happy to yield as long as I do not lose time and do not lose my right to the floor.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, there is so much happening in the world of politics and elections, it is almost hard to know what topic to talk about. Education is certainly No. 1 on the agenda of the American people, and we are now in the final stages, I hope, of agreeing--I am hopeful--on an education bill for our country. We have made some good progress. I am very glad; it appears President Clinton's budget priority for afterschool programs is winning out. I am hoping that is the case. Many of us have worked long and hard to make the point that afterschool care is crucial, that it is the best antidote to high crime, juvenile crime that occurs in the afternoons after school. It is a no-brainer. We know if kids are kept occupied after school, it keeps them out of trouble. We have seen these programs work. We have seen that juvenile crime occurs between 3 and 6 p.m. If children are engaged in stimulating activity after school, it helps. President Clinton and the Democrats have been trying to ensure that the 1 million children who are waiting for afterschool programs, in fact, get afterschool programs. After reading press reports, I am glad to report to my colleagues that this looks as if it is on the way. However, we still have a major disagreement on school construction. I have seen some of our schools that are falling apart. Again, I hope we can reach agreement on this crucial issue. The two candidates for President have been arguing over education. The good news is that education is the topic of the day. It is important, when we realize we have to import people to come into this country to take the high-tech jobs, and what a tragedy it is that our young people are not trained. So education is key. Of course, there is an argument between the two candidates on whether or not education should be a national priority, which is Vice President Gore's view, or Governor Bush's view that really the National Government should not get very involved. This is a key distinction. I side with Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican President, who said it is crucial to our national defense to have education as a top priority and to make sure that our young people are educated in math, science, and reading, everything they have to know--even in those days before high tech. I think Vice President Gore is correct. There is also a flap over some claims that the Texas students were doing really well. It turns out that the independent Rand report issued just yesterday says, in fact, those Texas students were not tested with national tests. If one looks at the national tests, they are just not making it. Clearly, this education issue is going to go on. I come here as a member of the Foreign Relations Committee to talk about another issue, a very important issue, and that is an issue that is being debated in the Foreign Relations Committee right now. I am not on the particular subcommittees that are holding this hearing, but it seems to me the hearing going on about U.S.-Russia policy in 1995 are really aimed at trying to take a hit at Vice President Gore. It is interesting that Republican officials who are speaking up 2 weeks before the election never even talked about the agreement that came out of those meetings in 1995. They did not talk about them for 5 years, but 2 weeks before an election they are out there trying to hurt the Vice President. This is politics at its very worst. Frankly, what we ought to be talking about is foreign policy in the years 2000 and 2001 in this century because some of the comments made by Governor Bush and his advisers are raising all kinds of alarms throughout the world. It is important that they be put on the table. These remarks have to do with the U.S. policy in the Balkans. Advisers to Governor Bush have followed up on his statements he made in the last debate that if he was elected President, he would negotiate for the removal of all U.S. peacekeeping troops from the Balkans. As one can imagine, this announcement has set off alarms in capitals of our European allies who rightly believe that such a policy would weaken and divide NATO. One of the things that alarmed me about Governor Bush's comments was he said our military is really there to fight wars and win wars, not to keep the peace; that is our role. That puts our people in a very difficult position because if, in fact, we have a situation where suddenly our military is no longer involved in peacekeeping but only in fighting, then I think our NATO allies will say: OK, you do the fighting, we will do the peacekeeping. And it means that our troops will be in harm's way and our pilots will be in harm's way. This is a great concern to me. According to today's New York Times, Lord Robertson, the NATO Secretary General, has regularly told visiting American Congressmen that the Bush proposal could undermine the whole idea of risk sharing, which is precisely the glue that holds our alliance together. The Washington Post quotes one European Ambassador saying: If the U.S. says it will not perform certain tasks, then the basic consensus of ``all for one and one for all'' begins to unravel. . . . The integrated military command could fall apart and so would [our] alliance.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I thank my friend.

Mrs. BOXER. Then I have no objection.

Mrs. BOXER. Reserving the right to object, I just want to find out if this was cleared on our side.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the record and accomplishments of one of my constituents who has devoted his career to serving working men and women in California. On the occasion of his retirement from the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, I salute Joe Dean Bobo for his tireless efforts over the last three decades, and applaud his lifetime of accomplishments. Joe Bobo was born in rural Arkansas to a family of fifteen. He moved to Oakland, California as a teenager, and served three years in the United States Army before beginning work in his family's scrap metal business. Joe's involvement with the IAMAW began in 1969, when he began work as an apprentice mechanic. He quickly advanced to become a shop steward, and was appointed a full-time union official with the IAMAW Northern California District Lodge 190 in 1979. Since that time, Joe has worked tirelessly in advocating for fair wages and benefits on behalf of the men and women he represents. He has gained the respect of both labor union members and employers through his dedicated service. In addition to his full-time position with the IAMAW, Joe's experience and passion for labor issues have resulted in him being called on to participate in a variety of leadership positions. He is currently the Secretary/Treasurer of the Automotive Machinists Coordinating Committee of Northern California and a Trustee of the Automotive Industries Health, Welfare and Pension Fund. Joe's labor leadership has also included a term as President of the California Conference of Machinists, representing 150,000 members employed in the aerospace, airlines, automotive, electronics and manufacturing industries. His community service is also commendable, including service as an advisory member of the Transition Committee for Waste Management and on the New Oakland Committee. Joe is an exceptional person who has earned the gratitude and respect of the scores of people who have worked with him and come to know him. I am pleased to join Joe's friends, family and colleagues in recognizing his outstanding service to his fellow workers and to the community and wish him well as he moves on to new challenges in his retirement.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, the Senate considered the VA-HUD conference report a week ago today. During consideration of the bill, the Senate extensively debated report language included in the conference report that dealt with the cleanup of river and ocean sediment contaminated with DDT, PCBs, metals and other toxic chemicals. Upon passing the conference report today, it is critically important to reiterate that it was understood by the managers of the bill in the House and the Senate that our resolution of the contaminated sediments issue in the VA-HUD conference report on October 12, 2000 was final, and that modifications to the report language or bill language relating to this issue would not be permitted this legislative session on any legislative vehicle. It is also important to reiterate and to underscore the clarifications the Senate made to that report language. One of the most important clarifications was a statement of the managers that the report language would not apply presently or prospectively to any site in California. Another important clarification included a colloquy between Senators Bond, Mikulski and Levin stating that EPA had full discretion to define the operative terms of the report language. Yet another critical clarification was a colloquy between Senators Bond, Mikulski and Lautenberg that stated that the National Academy of Sciences study referred to in the report language was not to be afforded any type of extraordinary or special standing in the Environmental Protection Agency's established process for selecting remedies under Superfund. Finally, a colloquy between Senators Bond and L. Chafee clarified that report language would not affect the cleanup of the Centredale Manor Restoration Project in Rhode Island. Make no mistake about it, Mr. President, I would have preferred that the proponents of this report language not be given even one bite at the apple in an appropriations bill on the important issue of cleaning up heavily contaminated river and ocean waters. I was concerned that the report language they advanced would slow cleanups in California and around the nation. I am satisfied that our debate on the report language will ensure that it does not have that effect. Under no circumstances, however, should the proponents of this report language be permitted a second bite at the apple to undo the work of this chamber and the commitments of the House and Senate managers not to revisit the issue of contaminated sediments--in bill or report language--in this legislative session on any legislative vehicle.