Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I particularly thank Senator Stevens for his graciousness in not only allowing me to go forward with this amendment today but agreeing to have a vote directly on the amendment. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER. I thank my friend from Alaska and my friend from Hawaii for agreeing to my request. I hope we will not have much opposition because I believe that this amendment is, in fact, consistent with the stated policy of the Department of Defense. I will explain what my amendment does. My amendment would prohibit the routine use of particularly harmful pesticides on Department of Defense property or grounds where children may be present. I was stunned to learn, about a year after I got to the Senate--so it must have been about 1984--that the way the laws were written and the way they applied across the Government was that our environmental laws were set to protect essentially 155-pound men. Now, that is fine, if you are in that category, but what we find out is that people of a lesser weight, a different gender, pregnant women, the elderly, people who are ill, and little children, react very differently to that amount of pollution or pesticide, as the case may be. So I wrote a bill called the Children's Environmental Protection Act. I am very much hopeful that we can get it passed as sort of an omnibus bill that takes care of all of our laws in every Department to make sure that children, in particular, are protected. So far we have not had much luck moving that bigger package, so what I have done is, on every bill that has come before this body, I have offered an amendment that would lower the risk for our children. In this particular case, we are saying to the Department of Defense: You have been good about putting the policy forward; we want to codify it and make sure that you do not use a pesticide containing a probable carcinogen or a known carcinogen, an acute nerve toxin or other toxins that would in fact harm our children. Why is it important to limit the use of these pesticides around children? Clearly, by definition, pesticides are meant to kill living things. Exposure to pesticides has been linked to cancer, neurological disorders, and learning disabilities. For example, common insecticides that schools spray on baseboards and floors to kill cockroaches and ants include an active ingredient--chlorpyrifos--that is classified by the EPA as a nerve toxin. And I compliment Carol Browner over at the EPA because she just held a press conference announcing that this particular ingredient will be banned. However, it is important to note it is going to take at least 6 months for that ban, and we do not want that kind of toxin being sprayed around children. That is why it is important to include it in this amendment. We know that potential chronic effects from exposure to these kinds of harmful toxins, we know we see a decrease in neurological performance. Are these risks any different for children in relation to adults? The answer is yes. I would like to refer you to the 1993 National Academy of Sciences report, ``Pesticides in the Diets of Infants and Children.'' We know that children are at greater risk to experience the harmful effects of pesticides exposure than adults. In other words, children are not just little adults. They are changing; they are growing. I often say that I am a little adult but I am not a child; I have grown to my maximum potential. But the fact is, kids at a certain age, before they reach maturity, are very susceptible to having adverse reactions to the chemicals that I would not have, nor Senator Inouye, nor Senator Stevens, nor our Presiding Officer, Senator Roberts; we are stronger, although I would say they are much stronger than I am because they are being protected because of a rule that says if you are a 155- pound male, you will be OK. So it is important to bring this issue to the Senate as often as I can, and I am very pleased with the response I have gotten from colleagues thus far because we have been able to change the rules as they apply to safe drinking water; we recently had some luck on an education bill; and we have had some luck with the Superfund in committee. We make sure that when the Superfund sites are cleaned up-- these are the terrible dumps that include so many harmful toxins--they are cleaned up to protect children, not just the 155-pound adults. We know that pound for pound of body weight, children eat more food; they drink more water; and they breathe more air than adults so they are vulnerable. They are rapidly growing; their developing systems are vulnerable. I want to show you this picture in case you are wondering what all this means because I think it is extremely interesting and it is also extremely disturbing. This picture is from a study, ``Showing the Effects of Pesticide Exposure on Young children.'' One group of children in this study was from a region where pesticide use was high, both in the home and outdoors. The other group in the study was the same as the first group: same age, same ethnicity, except the second group of children was from regions where pesticides were not used--the same group of children, except for pesticide exposure. The two groups of children were asked to draw a person to test their cognitive ability, their ability to learn and understand. These are the results, results which show an unsettling picture. These are the pictures that were drawn by the kids who were exposed to pesticides. You can see you don't even see a resemblance of a person. And clearly where there was very little exposure, you are getting a much more appropriate type of drawing. This isn't something that we are making up. We are seeing this response. The kids who grew up without exposure to pesticide use in significant proportions did far better. They had better hand-eye coordination, and you could see it so clearly; they had better memory and their brain skills were so much sharper. The study's authors also observed that children from the area with little pesticide use--and again that is clearly this group shown here-- engaged in more group play; they were more creative with their activities; they were less aggressive than the children from the area with the high pesticide use. This is a study that is considered one of the first in this particular area. This was done by Professor Elizabeth Guillette who is affiliated with the University of Arizona. This study clearly shows what many of us have suspected for a long time. It is a fact in evidence that our kids are damaged when they are exposed to dangerous pesticides and toxins. The point I want to make about the amendment is that while we prohibit the routine use of these dangerous pesticides, we certainly do not prohibit the Department of Defense from using common and less toxic pesticides. Under the amendment, DOD could still use synthetic pyrethroid insecticides to control insects. These insecticides are among the most common used today. And, DOD could still use copper sulfate, a very common pesticide used today. DOD also could still use ``biopesticides''--there are some 50 of these type pesticides in use today. DOD could also use pheromone traps and baits--which are used heavily today to control termites and carpenter ants. Finally, DOD could still use insect growth regulators, which help control insects. I was asked when putting this amendment together: Suppose there is an absolute emergency and we have an encephalitis epidemic break out on a military base. We make an exception for that in this amendment. We agree, if we have to go to these harsher toxins to fight a health hazard. Of course. We have an exception in this amendment. By the way, that exception is part of the DOD guidelines. We are only banning as a routine method the known carcinogens, the probable carcinogens, the nerve toxins from regular use. This is a very disturbing study that was done by someone who is considered a leader in this field of understanding children and their brain development at the University of Arizona. We know for a fact that kids are adversely impacted by these toxins. I would be very pleased to see the Senate act to put on the record and put into law the official banning of these very harmful pesticides. I again thank my colleague, the Senator from Hawaii, Mr. Inouye, for his help on this. I ask unanimous consent that Harry Reid be added as a cosponsor to this amendment.

Mrs. BOXER. I will do my best to describe my amendment in about 10 minutes, if I might.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Again, I thank my friend for connecting the dots. To those Americans who say there is no difference between the parties, there are no issues in this election, that it is a matter of who has the best smile, I say that is not what it is about. It is about issues that impact millions and millions of Americans; 30,000 Americans die every year of gunshots. My friend pointed out that about 13 a day of those are children--children. The Democrats are saying we need sensible gun laws, and our Republican friends are saying we don't need anything, just hang it up in the conference committee and say a few words here and let's move on. We will not let that issue die, if you will, nor the Patients' Bill of Rights and prescription drugs. Again, it is about millions of people. What always fascinates me is my friends on the Republican side--oh, they are tough on law and order. And I agree with them. I am as tough as they come. I will support the death penalty for heinous crimes. But when an HMO kills a patient because they won't approve the appropriate test--and I have seen it time and time again in my State, where tests for cancer were denied because they were expensive diagnostic tests, and HMOs wind up essentially killing a patient because they got treatment too late--they let them off the hook: We don't want the right to sue. Let these people just walk away with maybe a slap on their wrists. Where is the outrage? Where is the outrage when people die because of medical malpractice or an HMO not willing to invest in our people? Take the issue of minimum wage, where people are actually living in poverty. For goodness' sake, some in our military are on food stamps. Yet our friends on the other side will vote for luxury jets to ferry around the generals. I don't know where the shame is. I don't know where the outrage is. I can only say that this is where it is today. It is reflected in the Presidential race, and it is reflected in the Senate races and in the congressional races. I only ask the American people to wake up, regardless of what party they are in, because that doesn't matter to me. These are not partisan issues. These are issues of right and wrong. These are issues of fairness. I really think my friend has connected the dots on several of these issues--the gun issue, the Patients' of Bill of Rights, prescription drugs, minimum wage. What do these have in common? They are all issues that matter to America's families, the way we live, and the kind of life we have. They are crucial issues. No matter what happens in the Senate when the majority leader brings legislation forward--or doesn't--whether we do nothing or we do something, we are going to come home with these issues and talk about them, and we are going to organize around these issues. Otherwise, I don't think we deserve to be here if we are silent in the face of inaction. I thank my friend again for taking this time and for engaging in this colloquy. (Mr. ENZI assumed the chair.)

Mrs. BOXER. Again, my friend raises a very crucial issue. I have the paperwork here, and my friend is right on target. George W. Bush's tax cut proposal is $1.7 trillion from 2002 to 2010, and going to his privatized plan for Social Security will cost $1 trillion. My friend said $800 billion; it is $1 trillion. The projected on-budget surplus, if the economy continues to do well--and you never can count on that, but we certainly hope so--is $877 billion, which leaves a $2.7 trillion deficit. We are going to go back into the bad days. So not only are George W. Bush and the Republican Party not wanting to act and make life better by moving forward on the issues about which we talked--the gun issue, prescription drugs, the Patients' Bill of Rights, and the minimum wage. So not only won't they change for the good, they want to go back, and we are going to be facing these horrific deficits, a national debt that will start to soar again, the markets will react with high interest rates, and we will be back into the deepest trouble. We will be bailing ourselves out. I have to say again that by looking at this entire choice we have in this election, it is very interesting. As I listen to my friend, I realize what we face. We face a situation where either we are going to go forward on certain issues but keep fiscal responsibility, or not move on crucial issues that are really life-and-death issues and go back to the days of horrible economic times. We all remember when President Bush went to Japan and threw up his hands and said: What are we going to do? We are in deep trouble. Help us. That was not a high point in American life. Now, with the Clinton- Gore team, we are leading the world, but we will only continue if we don't go back to those bad old days of deficits. I thank my friend.

Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield for a couple questions?

Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Senator from Illinois for reading these names into the Record, for putting a human face on what is a national tragedy. He experienced this at home, and I did as well in California. People are wondering just exactly what we are doing. Since Columbine, we agreed to five sensible gun amendments, one of them to close the gun show loophole, which would make it very difficult, if not impossible, for criminals and children and people who are mentally unbalanced to buy guns at gun shows; also, for example, to make sure that all handguns are sold with safety locks, so if kids get hold of a gun, there is no discharge of a bullet. I want to engage my friend in a little colloquy. While we were gone last week, there were two horrific stories, just two that made the national news. God knows there were more. One of them involved a student who was acting out on the last day of school. He was throwing water balloons. And the teacher said: Listen, you are just going to have to leave school. You don't belong here. We don't have tolerance for this kind of behavior. The child left school, went home; he told someone he was going to get a gun. The child who was told this didn't believe it. Sure enough, he went to his grandfather's stash of guns and got one. It had no safety lock on it. He returned, and he killed a very wonderful, kind family man, a teacher at the prime of his life, in his thirties. Then we had the incident in Queens where a disgruntled employee essentially executed people who worked at a Wendy's. What do we do here? Nothing. We do nothing. I am listening for the majority leader. We already passed these amendments in the Senate, and the amendments are languishing in the committee. I say to my friend, what are the American people to think about this inaction? I would like him to comment on that. Then I have another question about the NRA convention. If my friend could comment, because he feels so strongly about this, what are the American people thinking about the Senate and Congress, controlled by Republicans, who do nothing about the issue of the killing of our people at a far greater rate than our soldiers died in Vietnam? We have a war in our streets. What do you think they should do about it?

Mrs. BOXER. Amusement parks as well.

Mrs. BOXER. I say to my friend, what is extremely frustrating is the talk we hear: Gee, it does not make any difference who gets elected. I want to make a point straight from the shoulder, and I am known for that. The fact is, every single Democrat voted for these sensible gun measures, except one, and we had just a few on the other side join us. There is a difference. I ask my friend if he happened to hear the NRA convention speeches that were made or if he read them, and, if so, what he thought. I was, frankly, stunned at the all-out personal attack on Al Gore that I heard. I have no objection to people having differences. If they want everyone to carry a concealed weapon, that is their choice to make that decision. I do not think we want to see an America that is a shootout at the OK Corral. I do not think that is going to make our country great. But if somebody thinks that we all ought to pack a weapon, that is their right, but to personally attack the Vice President because he supports sensible gun control laws--which, by the way, are supported by 80 percent of the people--to make this a personal, vicious attack on Al Gore--and I read Wayne LaPierre's speech and I read Charlton Heston's speech. They named Al Gore in the most vicious way and attacked him in the most personal way. I ask my friend if he would like to see this debate elevated above these personalities. It is dangerous to start attacking people in such a way, and I hope we can keep our disagreements over the issues rather than attack a Vice President who is simply reflecting the views of 80 percent of the people. When we hear the NRA executive say: When George Bush is elected, we are going to operate out of the White House--that sends chills up and down my spine. No group should operate out of the White House, whether it is Sarah and Jim Brady's gun control group or the NRA. For them to say when George Bush is elected they are going to work out of the White House is a frightening thought to me. I hope the American people will tune in to this and not say all the candidates are alike and not say all of us are alike. They are not going to find us perfect, that is for sure. No one is perfect. Doesn't my friend believe this is an issue where there are serious differences between the two parties?

Mrs. BOXER. I thank my friend for raising the issue of the Supreme Court. I should have raised it myself. He is so right on that point. The Supreme Court up to now has, in fact, said it is OK for Congress to work on gun laws that keep guns out of the hands of criminals and children, and that it is not, in fact, a violation of the second amendment because we say: Sure, if you are responsible and you need to have a gun and you have a reason to have it--for recreation or to defend your family--and you are a responsible gun owner, that is one situation. But if you are a criminal, you are mentally unbalanced, if you walk in and buy a gun, by the way, when you are high on drugs or alcohol, this is not going to be good for this Nation. The Supreme Court up to now has upheld our ability to regulate. There is no question that with the NRA operating out of the George Bush White House, we are going to see in the Congress not only a lack of future progress on controlling these guns and who has these guns, but we are going to see the Supreme Court tilt and say: Congress, you have no business dealing with this issue. I ask my friend this: If we have no other role to play, shouldn't it be that we protect the health and the safety of the people of this country? I know we are trying to get a Patients' Bill of Rights. This is another issue for which we are fighting hard because that is our sacred obligation, if nothing else. We can have the greatest economy in the world, the best economy in the world, people can be working and thriving, but if some child goes home and gets his grandpa's gun and shoots a beautiful teacher in the head, if some disgruntled employee who has a criminal record can get a gun at a gun show, what good does it do if you have the best job and the best future in the world? My friend has read the names of people shot down in the prime of their lives. We are supposed to live to our seventies, and a lot of these people are shot down in their teens, in their twenties, or in their thirties. My friend is so right to raise this issue of the Supreme Court. I thank him so much for engaging in this colloquy. I know this talk is hard talk. By the way, it certainly raises our names to the NRA; and that is not easy for us, either. But the fact is, I believe in my heart that the NRA gives a lot of money to people in Government but there has to be some of us who stand up. I am proud to say every single Democrat, many of whom absolutely believe, as we do, in the right to gun ownership, have stood strong and said we must keep guns out of the hands of children, the mentally unbalanced, and people with criminal records. I say this to my friend: This is a fight we are going to wage on this floor. We are not going to let George Bush hide behind the fact that he says nice things. I am amazed that the polls don't reflect that people know what he stands for, making it possible to carry a concealed weapon into a church--we had a horrible massacre in a Texas church--or into hospitals. Why do you need a gun in a hospital--explain that to me--a place of healing, a place of peaceful recuperation? Why do you need a gun in a church? Why do you need a gun in a hospital? What about an amusement park where there are so many kids around? This makes no sense. He did it because the NRA wanted it done. We have to speak the truth here if we are worth anything. I thank my friend for speaking the truth, for reading the names of those who died, and for bringing this issue day after day to the floor of the Senate. I will be by his side.

Mrs. BOXER. Will my friend yield on that point?

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President. I am delighted today to introduce legislation to restore federal recognition to the Graton Rancheria, which is composed of Coastal Miwok and Southern Pomo tribal members. This bill is identical to legislation that has been introduced in the House of Representatives by Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey. It is my great pleasure to carry this legislation in the Senate and to correct an injustice committed against these original inhabitants of the region some 34 years ago. The Coastal Miwok and Southern Pomo Indians flourished in Marin and southern Sonoma counties for many hundreds of years. At the time of European settlement, there were as many as 5,000 of these tribal members. By the end of the 19th Century, however, disease and enforced labor had killed off most of them. And the federal government formally terminated the tribe's identity in 1966 under the California Rancheria Act, after concluding, incorrectly, that virtually all of the members were deceased. The descendants of 12 Graton Rancheria survivors now number over 300, and they refer to themselves as the ``Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria''--after the town in southern Sonoma County where an acre- sized piece of their original reservation is still owned by a Miwok descendant. This legislation not only restores dignity and a sense of identity to the Graton Rancheria, it will restore all federal rights and privileges to the tribal members including health, education, and housing services. It will also permit the Graton Rancheria to maintain an existing cemetery and place of worship. Finally, this bill is unique in that it contains a clause whereby the tribe permanently waives any right to casino-style gambling on their land. Mr. President, the tribes of the Graton Rancheria are an integral and important part of the Bay Area's cultural heritage and history. It was wrong to terminate their status in 1966, and it is only right to restore their formal recognition now.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, as the country enters this Memorial Day weekend to pay tribute to those who gave their lives to protect and defend the United States, I come before the Senate to introduce legislation aimed at making it easier for veterans to receive medications through the VA health care system. Right now, VA pharmacies are prohibited from dispensing medications that are prescribed by non-VA practitioners. This means that veterans can not have their prescriptions filled at a VA facility if it is written by their private doctor. Under current law, veterans only have to pay $2 for each 30-day supply of medication supplied by the VA. Therefore, if a veteran needs to have a prescription filled by a non-VA practitioner, it can mean great out-of-pocket expenses. My legislation would change the current system to allow the VA to fill prescriptions that are written by non-VA practitioners. This bill has been endorsed by The American Legion, the National Association of Uniformed Services and the Non-Commissioned Officers Association. I believe it is a common sense approach, and I think we owe it to veterans to make health care as affordable and accessible as possible. Earlier today, I had the pleasure of speaking at the Veterans Washington Rally which was sponsored by the Vietnam Veterans of America, Rolling Thunder, the Jewish War Veterans and other veteran supporters. These veterans were asking for full funding for the VA health care system as spelled out in the Independent Budget, a comprehensive analysis of the VA budget which is prepared each year with the support of several veteran organizations. Veterans are rightly concerned that current budget plans are barely enough to keep up with health care inflation and is nowhere near enough to provide quality emergency and long-term care or begin a serious fight against hepatitis C. I was proud to see these veterans fighting for the benefits and services that are rightly theirs, and I hope we can address their concerns when the Senate considers the VA-HUD appropriations bill later this year. Thank you, Mr. President. And, may God bless all of America's veterans this Memorial Day.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, after long and difficult deliberation, I have decided to vote for permanent normal trade relations with China. The House of Representatives has now passed the bill and I expect the Senate to take it up next month, after the Memorial Day recess. California is the leading state in world trade. Its location on the Pacific Rim makes our relationship with Asia extremely important. During my congressional career, I have supported some of the trade relations proposals we have considered and opposed others. I believe that each trade proposal should be considered on its own, and I do not have an ideological bent on the issue of trade. The decision on this bill--to grant permanent normal trade relations status to China--has been one of the hardest I have ever had to make, because the arguments on both sides have merit. I would like to review in this statement the excellent points made by both sides in the debate. First, with respect to human rights, those opposed to PNTR cite China's continuing terrible human rights record. They argue that by not having annual review of China's trade status, we will lose our strongest leverage to force China to change its behavior. It is also argued that by granting China permanent normal trade relations, we are rewarding and legitimizing the leaders who have such a bad human rights record. Finally, the argument that increased contact with China will improve human rights conditions is undermined by the facts. According to the 1999 State Department Human Rights Report, the Chinese government's human rights record has deteriorated over the past several years, despite increased contacts between China and the United States. But there are human rights advocates who support PNTR for China. They believe that isolating China will be bad for human rights, because the leaders will then be under no outside pressure to change their behavior. They also argue that, over time, people to people contacts through the media, internet and travel will expose the Chinese people to international standards and values and will continue to gradually loosen rigid, authoritarian structures. This is why such esteemed human rights leaders as the Dalai Lama and Wang Dan, on of the Tiananmen Square leaders, support PNTR for China. The human rights concerns are why inclusion of the Levin amendment in the House bill is so important to me. This regime to monitor human rights and worker rights in China will put these issues in sharp focus and will significantly increase our knowledge about whether the Chinese people are making progress in these areas. I commend Congressman Levin for his leadership in attaching this important safeguard to the legislation. Second, with respect to the impact of PNTR on American jobs, there are arguments on both sides. Opponents say that bringing China into the World Trade Organization and granting it permanent normal trade status will result in the loss of more than 800,000 jobs in the United States. They believe it will allow multinational corporations to move many operations into China, where worker wages and benefits are much lower, wages being as low as 13 cents an hour. The principal argument in favor of PNTR is that we must pass it in order to get the benefits of the trade agreement negotiated by the Clinton administration last year, which requires China to lower trade barriers and open up the Chinese market to all kinds of American products and services, including many from my State of California. Supporters estimate that implementation of this agreement will increase exports of U.S. goods to China by more than $13 billion per year by 2005. Supporters also argue that granting PNTR to China will give the U.S. the ability to force Chinese compliance with all terms of the trade agreement, including with WTO-authorized sanctions if necessary. If PNTR is not granted, the U.S. could not avail itself of WTO enforcement procedures. So it is clear that there are strong arguments on both sides of the human rights and workforce/labor issues. But the reason I have decided to vote in favor of permanent normal trade relations status for China is because, first and foremost, I believe that it is my responsibility as a United States Senator to put the national security of the United States above all other considerations. And on the national security question, in my opinion, there is only one rational view. I believe that through engagement with China we have the best opportunity to avoid a cold war type atmosphere, which hung like a cloud over this nation--indeed, the world--for 45 years after World War II. A vote against PNTR would suggest that the U.S. views China as an adversary and would make it much more difficult to engage China to work with us constructively in key strategic areas. Of particular concern to me is China's role in efforts to bring peace and stability to the Korean Peninsula. China encouraged North Korea's compliance with the U.S.-DPRK (North Korea) framework which halted the North's nuclear weapons program, and China will undoubtedly have to be part of any solution that integrates North Korea into the international community. China also plays a key role in the international community's response to the continuing conflict between India and Pakistan. China has in fact condemned both nations for conducting nuclear tests, and has urged them both to conduct no more tests, to avoid deploying or testing missiles, and to work to resolve their differences over Kashmir through dialogue, rather than military action. Finally, China is playing an increasingly active and constructive role in Asian security and stability. U.S. isolation of China would seriously undermine our ability to influence China's future orientation, and would set us on a dangerous path of confrontation. I am under no illusions that granting PNTR to China will make it our new best friend. But failure to do so could well make it an adversary of the sort that we lived with for almost half a century until the fall of the Berlin Wall and the disintegration of the Soviet Union. That is a risk we should not take.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, it is interesting that Senator Grams and Senator Santorum came to the floor to praise Governor Bush's Social Security plan. I come here to express my deep alarm over this plan and to place into the Record the reasons I believe it is very dangerous to the future of this country, to our senior citizens, and to those who really depend on Social Security for themselves or for their aging parents. I think the first question to ask is, What is Social Security? Why is it called security? I used to be a stockbroker. I can tell you that I have seen the smiles when the market goes up, and I have seen the tears when the market goes down. At the time I was a broker, there was a very traumatic period in our history. It was the tragic assassination of our great President John Kennedy. I will never forget, the market was just crashing that day. It went down so much that there was a halt in the trading. Anyone who retired that day, and had an annuity plan, would have been in the deepest trouble. I believe in investments in the stock market. I believe in investments in the bond market. I think it is very important that we let our people know Social Security is not meant to be your full retirement. What it is meant to be--and what it has worked so well as-- is a basic foundation, a safety net, not guesswork but a basic return you can expect every month with a check you will get which will meet your basic needs. Let me describe it this way: You have a house. It is very modest, but it is good. It has a roof. It protects you. It is a place where you can be comfortable, warm. It works for you. Maybe you want to add a room to that house. That is wonderful. That is an amenity. That is something additional you could use--a family room, an extra bedroom. But you do not mess with the foundation of the house. You keep that a solid house--that Social Security. Anyone who challenges this idea is making a huge mistake. I will explain why. You do not have to go that far to look at the ultimate result if we just said: People can just have individual accounts and forget Social Security. Because we know that happened in Texas. I will show you what happened in Texas when three counties left Social Security and went into the market and said to their people: We will allow you to deal with your accounts. This isn't theoretical; it has actually happened in Texas. Let me tell you about the Texas example where every single family lost out. It was the same idea Governor Bush has. He started off talking about 2 percent of your Social Security being diverted. As I understand it, last week he said he could foresee a time when everybody has private accounts--100 percent. We know what happened in this experiment. The source here is the U.S. General Accounting Office, February 1999. They did a study of the Texas experiment. This is what happened. Those counties went off Social Security, instead of saying: We will have a supplemental plan, like a 401(k). Keep your Social Security. Let's do a supplemental plan. By the way, around here, a lot of us have a supplemental plan. We have our basic Social Security, and then we have what we call thrift savings, which is added on. That is fine. But we do not mess with Social Security. These counties messed with Social Security. They walked away. This is what happened: The bottom 10 percent of earners, had they stayed in Social Security, would be getting a monthly benefit of $1,125. But in their retirement plan--where they just said forget Social Security, we will have an individual account--they are getting $542 a month. That is utter poverty. If they are in the median, the moderate income, instead of getting $1,488 a month from Social Security, they are getting $810 a month. If they are in the highest income, instead of getting $1,984 a month, they are getting $1,621 a month. So when Senator Santorum and Senator Grams come to the floor--I say to my friend from Illinois, they have been lauding the Bush plan--I think we have to note that if you took the Bush plan to its ultimate, which he in fact said he could foresee, abandoning Social Security for individual accounts, every family lost, regardless of their income bracket. I do not want to see this for America's families. I do not want to see it. I ask the next question: What happens if we go this route, and people are living in poverty instead of having a social safety net because of this? Do you think Congress would turn its back on the families of America? You know we would not. What would we do? We would say: Oh, my God, we had better bail them out. We have done it before for the savings and loans. We do not want to see people go destitute. Then you have to ask yourself a question: If George Bush is President and he gets this huge tax cut for the wealthy but has used up all the money for that tax cut, where is he going to find the money to do this bailout? Are we going to go back to the days of printing money? We just finally got out of that situation--thank God--where we were running these deficits; we finally got it under control. Let me tell you, this election is a watershed election. This is a risky plan. The women Democratic Senators held a press conference just a few days ago. We decided to look at what this plan would do to women in our Nation. We went to the experts and asked them how they felt about it. This is what one of them said. I want to put his credentials into the mix. This is John Mueller, of Lehrman Bell Mueller Cannon, Inc., a former adviser not to Al Gore, not to Barbara Boxer, not to Dick Durbin, but an adviser to Representative Jack Kemp, an adviser to Republican Jack Kemp. This is what John Mueller said: . . . the largest group of losers from ``privatizing'' Social Security would be women. This is true for women in all birth-years, all kinds of marital status, all kinds of labor- market behavior, and all income levels. Why does he say this? We went into this in the press conference we women Senators held. I want to try to find that clip so I can share with you why it is a fact that women will suffer. First of all, there is no question that private accounts will lead to the reduction of benefits. Why do I say that? I want to make sure people understand that, because when you divert money away from Social Security into private accounts, what happens? The Social Security fund drops, and we do not have enough money to keep paying those benefits. So benefits would have to be cut. Women live longer, and they count on those benefits, so they would lose more; they would suffer more. Now, here is an irrefutable fact, and the group that analyzed this was the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. With just a 2-percent privatization--in other words, taking 2 percent of your taxes and putting it into an individual account--the trust fund will go broke in the year 2023. That may sound like a long way off, but trust me when I tell you it is not; 20 years is not a lot of time. I remember back to 1980, and it doesn't seem that long ago. Twenty years from now, with the 2-percent privatization that George Bush is calling for, assuming he does nothing to cut the benefits--and he won't admit to that--the trust fund goes broke. Right now, without doing anything, the trust fund is solvent until 2037, so we make this trust fund go broke by many years. That is 14 years sooner that the trust fund is broke. Al Gore has a plan to take the interest payments on the debt he is going to save because he is much more conservative than George Bush in paying down the private debt, which is the bonds. He is going to absolutely make sure we don't have to keep issuing more bonds and we will pay down that debt. His plan keeps the funds solvent until 2050. So let's take a look at the three scenarios. If you do nothing, the fund is solvent until 2037. If you follow the Gore plan, the fund is solvent until 2050. If you do the Bush plan and you don't cut benefits or raise taxes--which he will not tell us what he is going to do--you go bust in 2023. This is from a conservative. We know if you carry this plan to the ultimate extreme and go beyond 2 percent, you essentially know, from looking at what has happened before, people will suffer. You set up a real problem and you may have to do an S&L-type bailout. That is not good. So the women Democratic Members are very clear on all of this. Let me say, in closing--and I know my friend, Senator Durbin, is anxious to address this issue--I think a robust debate over Social Security is right on target. I think encouraging people to save and put money into the stock market and have a nest egg there is good because I believe that is a good idea. But don't mess with Social Security. If you want to have a supplemental plan, your basic Social Security plus a 401(k), a thrift savings plan, and IRA, added on to the basic safety net, that is just fine. I believe in that. I think it is smart and good. But if you mess with the foundation, you are in a lot of trouble. Senator Schumer was talking about this earlier today. He made the point that he is saving for his kids' college education. He decided he needed to have that money, no ifs, ands, or buts. He took that money and put it into the safest Government bond-type of investment because he can't gamble. What happens if on the day he has to start paying those bills the market goes down? We have seen the volatility of these markets. He says: My kids have to go to college. I am not going to tell them they can't go. So, yes, for other types of savings; it is a good idea to invest in markets; but for your basic retirement, don't gamble as they did in Texas. Don't gamble as the candidate for President, George Bush, wants to do. There are a number of us who are sending a letter--and I hope Senator Durbin will describe it--to Governor Bush asking him to come clean on the details of his plan. I ask unanimous consent to have this document on solvency printed in the Record.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, his plan will take us into the red. Combined with his risky tax scheme, he won't be able to bail out the people. So it is a dangerous idea. Stock market investments are good, but not as a foundation of an insurance plan, which is what Social Security is. You will be hearing a lot more from the women Senators on our side of the aisle on this question because, under the leadership of Senator Mikulski, we have set up a checklist where we are going to judge every plan against this checklist that women should be able to count on. We should be able to count on several things: Preserving the Social Security guaranteed lifetime inflation and protecting the benefit; preserving Social Security protections to workers when they are disabled, as well as when they retire, and for workers, spouses, and children, and when workers are disabled, retired or die; three, protect against impoverishment of women by maintaining Social Security's progressive benefit structure; four, strengthen the financing of the Social Security system while ensuring that women and other economically disadvantaged groups are protected to the greatest degree possible. Look at that plan. Does it further reduce poverty among older women? I told you that his plan does not. We certainly want to see if it includes retirement savings options. Are these options something that will work for women? That is where we are. I will close by repeating a quote from an expert, John Mueller, a former adviser to Representative Jack Kemp, who said: The largest group of losers from ``privatizing'' Social Security would be women. This is true for women in all birth- years, all kinds of marital status, all kinds of labor-market behavior, and all income levels. If you look at this experiment in Texas, everyone lost--all families, women, everyone. Let's not go down this path. We can't afford to do that.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, Senator Grams quoted a letter to President Clinton that I signed last year. He took this letter out of context. In supporting the public pension systems of state and local government workers, I called for the continuance of those plans--not for the creation of private, individual accounts.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. If my friend will yield further, I understand Senator Grams came down and quoted me as saying I like the idea of people investing in the market. I do. But not taking it away from the foundation of Social Security. Social Security is that foundation. As my friend pointed out, this is really serious. Since Governor Bush is now saying he envisions the day when we don't have any more Social Security, when it would all be private accounts-- that is not Social Security. He is right to point out: What happens to those of us who have worked our 40 quarters? There would be nothing going into the Social Security fund to pay those benefits. What does that mean? We are not going to let those people go poor; everyone knows that. The pressure will be on us. We will bail out the system. If you take it a step further and look at his $2 trillion tax cut, where is he going to get the money? He will print it. We will go back to those days his father oversaw, with $300 billion deficits which added to the national debt. As my friend well knows, we had more debt in the Reagan-Bush years than we had from George Washington to Ronald Reagan. We do not want to go back to those days. We don't want to go back to those days when our President had to go visit another country to find out how to run the economy. Those were bad days for this Nation--bad, bad days. It took us a long time to get out of it. A lot of people lost their seats around here because they had the courage to vote to balance this budget. It did not take courage to vote for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. It did take courage, however, to vote to actually balance the budget. It meant some tough stuff. I want to ask my friend, we have a colleague on this side of the aisle who says: Yes, we ought to go into privatizing Social Security. But he is one of the most courageous and straightforward colleagues, Senator Bob Kerrey. What does he say about it? He says if you are going to go that route, this is what you have to do: Raise the retirement age. My friend has already pointed out we have raised it to 67 over time. What is it going to be, 75? People will die long before they get their checks or they will be too old to really appreciate it. We don't want to see that happen, raising the retirement age after people worked so hard, and then make them work longer, or raise taxes on the Social Security that you get, or on your interest from these personal accounts. Raise taxes, raise their retirement age, lower benefits--you have to do a combination of those things. I have to say, there are a lot of things we do around here that are not very good. But would my friend not agree we have a good system here that has lasted through time--70 years, as he points out? It is a basic retirement, a basic safety net. One last point I would make for my friend to comment on. Around here we are like everybody else; we want to make sure we can take care of our families. I think what we do around here is a good system. We have had Social Security since the 1980s. We decided to make sure we paid in. We have Social Security retirement as our basic foundation, and then, if we want, we can add a thrift savings plan. So, yes, we can pick out investing in the market--or, by the way, Government bonds, or corporate bonds--in addition to our Social Security. That will be my last question to my friend. We know it is good to not put all your eggs in one basket, but we also think it is important to have a basic account, No. 1; No. 2, don't go back to the bad old days of these yearly deficits that were dragging our economy down. Yes, you want to add something to sweeten your retirement pie, take a little risk with it. We know some people who have taken some risks and didn't do too well; others have done very well. That is fine. Don't mess with the foundation of the house. If you want to add a room, fix it up. That is great. But don't mess with the foundation.

Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield for a couple of questions?

Mrs. BOXER. I thank my colleague. Once again, he has explained quite clearly what the risks are to this Bush plan. I was reading some of the quotes that appeared in the press surrounding the Bush plan. I ask my colleague to comment on some of them. Bush's top economic adviser, Lawrence Lindsey, acknowledged somewhat sheepishly he bailed out of the market years ago. He said: That was because of my personal situation. I don't take risks. I hate losing money. That was from the Philadelphia Inquirer: I don't take risks; I hate losing money. I think that reflects certain people are more conservative. Others are willing to take a risk. The point my colleague and I have tried to make is that we think it is fine if you want to take a risk with certain accounts you have, but you don't want to risk the foundation of your retirement, the safety net of your retirement. You want to count on that. Bush's top economic adviser is saying he hates losing money, and yet the person he advises is essentially putting money at risk for other people. I want to mention something else. The word ``privatization'' is a good word. I like it. It is similar to the word ``deregulation.'' It is a nice word. Everybody likes ``privatization.'' It is a nice word that indicates individual control. Of course, much of what we do in our life is privatization. We have our own accounts, whether they are savings accounts, or we own bonds, and we direct them. However, Social Security is a little bit different. It is the foundation. The Houston Chronicle reported that Bush said on Tuesday, his plan to create private savings accounts could be the first step toward a complete privatization of Social Security. That would be the end of a program that has worked for 70 years. There is more at stake than a 2- percent diversion of funds. Finally, the New York Times reports, when answering the question about his plan, Mr. Bush said the Government could not go from one regime to another overnight. It is going to take a while to transition to a system where personal savings accounts are the predominant part of the investment vehicle. When he is asked by the Dallas Morning News, would beneficiaries receive less money, he says: Maybe; maybe not. I ask my friend for his comments on the volatility of the stock market expressed by Bush's own top economic adviser, the fact that this could be the first step toward the end of Social Security, and the fact that George Bush cannot answer today whether anyone would have to take a cut in your benefits.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, on the second Saturday of each May, letter carriers across the United States collect food donations on their postal routes to deliver to community food banks, shelters and pantries. I commend the National Association of Letter Carriers (NALC) for creating and sponsoring the largest one-day food drive in the country with over 100,000 letter carriers participating in more than 10,000 cities and towns. Not only do America's postal workers perform an important function in our economy and in our daily lives, they make a difference in improving the lives of needy citizens. I extend my appreciation and thanks to NALC's leaders and members for their dedication and commitment to their strong tradition of community service. The food drive started as small pilot program in 10 cities and, as a result of its huge success, was expanded nationwide. The program asks postal patrons to place a box or bag of food next to their mailboxes. The food is picked up, sorted at postal stations and then delivered to area food banks by letter carriers. I am pleased to note that in my home state, the California State Association of Letter Carriers was among those state associations which donated the largest amount of food in the national drive. It is my hope that during the month of May and throughout the year, Americans will consider becoming involved in the NALC Food Drive and in other activities serving the less fortunate in our communities.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Point of order: Is the Democratic side supposed to take over at 10:30?

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I will take a deep breath to see where we are in this great body. Senator Daschle, on behalf of many Members on this side and on behalf of 750,000 moms and their families, offered a very simple amendment to the bill. By the way, that happens all the time or should happen all the time around here. He offered a simple amendment to a bill commending the Million Mom March and simply asking that the conference committee that is taking up the juvenile justice bill release that bill, bring it back with the five sensible gun laws, and send it to the President for his signature. These five sensible gun laws are to stop the killing, the violence that is happening in our streets, in our cities, in our suburbs and our rural areas, in our schools, even in our churches, even in our Jewish community centers, a simple, straightforward amendment. The majority leader said today he didn't see it coming. What was coming? An amendment, a simple, straightforward amendment. The majority leader acted as if he was hurt to the core that this amendment would be offered. Let me say with great affection to the majority leader, he shut the Senate down for 5 hours yesterday because he didn't want to vote on that simple, straightforward amendment commending the Million Mom March and asking that conference committee to come back with the legislation. He shut the Senate down for 5 hours. It took 24 hours until we were able to vote. Might I just say when we thought we were ready to vote, he made a point of order that hasn't occurred in 16 years to try to do away with that vote. He wonders why those on this side felt we were being gagged. On the bright side, we won that vote today. The Senate has gone on record for the second time--the first time with the Reed amendment, and the second time with the Daschle amendment--to bring five sensible gun laws to this body for action. The Senate has spoken. The majority leader made light of it and said, ``No one really cares about it. It is a sense-of-the-Senate amendment.'' That isn't being respectful of the Members here, a few of whom crossed over from that side of the aisle. I thank those three or four who did so. I think the majority leader is wrong to think the conference committee would not listen. I hope it will. One of the things the majority leader said is we want to get to the ``real'' bills. I close with this: Is the majority leader implying that it is not a ``real'' tragedy when 12 children are shot down and killed every day? Does the majority not think it is a real issue, it is a real concern, when 30,000 Americans are killed every year--300,000-plus over the last 11 years, and 8 times as many injured, many in wheelchairs, suffering posttraumatic stress. This has been an emotional couple of days for this Senator. This is the Senate. We should not be gagged. We should be heard.

Mrs. BOXER. There is a war in our streets. Here is where we stand. We lost 58,168 of our beautiful citizens in an 11-year period in the Vietnam war until President Nixon ended that war because the people marched and the people said enough is enough. We have lost, in an 11-year period, 395,441 of our citizens. We have a war at home. It is going to take courage to stand up and say enough is enough. Let's commend the million moms.

Mrs. BOXER. I ask for 1 additional minute.