Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. This is very brief. I have been touched reading some of the comments that have come via the Internet on the Million Mom March web site. I simply read two which I think indicate why the Democratic proposal commending the Million Mom March is so on target. It speaks for so many people across America. I want to get a quick response from my colleague to these two very brief statements. A woman from Mount Royal, NJ, writes: I wholeheartedly support the Million Mom March. I lost my 25-year-old son in November of 1999 to a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head. I firmly believe that he would still be here today if there would not have been a gun available to him. My prayers go out to all those who are marching on Washington. And Elizabeth from North Carolina writes: Five years ago my sister was murdered by her ex-husband in a courthouse that had no metal detectors. She had warned the court of his threats and they took his guns away. But because of the easy access to guns, he just went out and got another. And he used it to kill her in front of their 6-year-old child. She says to the million moms: God bless all of you for walking in this march and raising awareness of the horrible problem we have with gun violence on behalf of my sister and her child. I thank you all for caring. I say to my friend before he leaves the floor tonight--he has been so generous to share his tremendous wisdom--isn't the reason the Democratic proposal, which praises the million moms for doing what they did, makes sense because people such as these have felt so alone? Is that my friend's perspective?

Mrs. BOXER. Before my friend leaves the floor, I want to ask him a question. Mr. ENZI addressed the Chair.

Mrs. BOXER. I believe Senator Durbin has the time.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, each May, hundreds of civic organizations, community groups, students, and public agencies around the nation organize events to celebrate Asian Pacific American Heritage Month. Throughout the month of May, we salute the profound contributions that Asian Pacific Americans have made in all areas of life in the United States. From the arts and sciences to politics and education, their accomplishments have helped shape our culture and build our nation. In my home state of California, May brings major events celebrating Asian Pacific American culture in Sacramento, Oakland, San Francisco, San Jose, Los Angeles, and San Diego. For more about these events and other interesting information, I invite everyone to consult my special Asian Pacific American Heritage Month web page at http:// boxer.senate.gov/apa/index.html. Asian Pacific American Heritage Month originated in 1977, when Representatives Norman Mineta and Frank Horton introduced a resolution calling on the President to proclaim the first ten days of May as Pacific/Asian Heritage Week. Senators Daniel Inouye and Spark Matsunaga introduced similar legislation in the Senate. The following year, President Jimmy Carter signed a Joint Resolution proclaiming Asian/ Pacific Heritage Week. The celebration was significantly expanded in 1992, when May was officially designated Asian Pacific American Heritage Month by an Act of Congress. The term ``Asian Pacific American'' denotes scores of Asian and Pacific Island ethnic groups with diverse languages, culture, and history. Asian Pacific American Heritage Month offers every American an opportunity to learn more about these peoples, who have woven so many beautiful threads into the tapestry of American life. During the month of May and throughout the year, I hope that every American will take a moment to learn and appreciate more about the rich traditions and major achievements of Asian Pacific Americans.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Was it part of my friend's resolution, welcoming the million moms to Washington?

Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield for one last question?

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank my friend from New Jersey. Let me echo what he has said on the floor in this matter--that we want to protect our children and our families from gun violence. He will be sorely missed. I want to pick up on something that was said about the million moms. I think Senator Lautenberg, as a grandfather, has spoken most eloquently as to what the women of this country really want. It is hard to generalize about it to people, but I can truly say, if there is anyone in our society who is more selfless than any other, it happens to be moms. When you love someone more than you love yourself, that is what happens. The fact that they are coming here in such amazing numbers is truly remarkable. I think when everyone across the Nation who is coming here on this issue is added up, it will be a million moms. There is a web page for the Million Mom March. It is called the Tapestry, and moms are calling that site; they are writing their stories. One woman from El Cerrito writes: Ten years ago, my beautiful son, Andrew, killed himself with a bullet to his brain. He was mentally ill, and never should have been able to buy a gun. I will be at the March with one of my daughters, who is also a mother, because something has got to bring Congress to its senses. Then there are several others. One wrote the following: Once I wrote a letter to my Congressman asking him to support sensible gun laws. He sent me back a three-page letter upholding the second amendment, but this had no effect on me as in my life I have lost my father and uncle and a nephew by marriage to guns. One was murder, one was a suicide, and one was accidental. Had guns not been around and easy to get, none of these untimely and sad deaths would have occurred. We are at a time in our history when we can look back at what is happening to our people. When I was a young mom--now I am a grandmom-- the reason I got involved in politics was that I thought the Vietnam war was wrong. I marched with my children in California at that time to say enough is enough; let's end the killing. We lost 58,168 of our valued sons and daughters in that war. For that period of 11 years, let's look at the statistics we have in our Nation from a different kind of war, a war in our streets, in our suburbs, in our schools, in our counties, our cities, in churches and child care centers: 395,441 dead. If the moms of America marched to end the war in Vietnam where 58,168 died--and they did help end it--we can turn around this tragic number and win this war in our streets. I say straight from my heart, we will not win this war unless people in this body have the guts and the courage to stand up to the gun lobby. We will not win this war if people in this body and in the House of Representatives do not have the heart and the guts and the courage to stand up to the gun lobby and its power. I pray that we will have that courage and we will have the strength to do it and turn around what is happening. Senator Lautenberg has talked about the juvenile justice bill. It is stuck in limbo, twisting in the wind in the conference committee after we had five sensible gun laws attached to it. They are very sensible and include: closing the gun show loophole so that people who shouldn't have a gun cannot get a gun at a gun show; banning the importation of high-capacity ammunition clips for automatic weapons, Senator Feinstein's amendment; requiring child safety devices be sold with every hand gun, Senator Kohl; an amendment by Senator Ashcroft that says it is illegal to sell or give a semiautomatic to anyone under the age of 18; and the fifth, requiring the Federal Trade Commission and the Attorney General to study the extent to which the gun industry markets to juveniles. If we thought Joe Camel was bad--and we know Joe Camel was bad--let's look at what the National Rifle Association is doing to market to our children. This is the beautiful, quite lovely NRA logo with the eagle. This is their logo. Here we see the cartoon version of that eagle, ``Eddie the Eagle.'' This is the gun lobby kids' cartoon. This is the eagle of the NRA. These kids are not 18. They are nowhere near 18. They are babies. What makes us think the gun lobby wants to market to kids? Let's take a look at what they say in an ad from a firearm manufacturer: ``Building the next generation of customers takes work and commitment. But it must be done.'' ``Our greatest threat is the lack of a future customer base.'' ``We continue to look for every opportunity to reach young people. . . .'' There shouldn't be any question about it. Just as Joe Camel was aimed at kids, so is Eddie the Eagle aimed at kids. Here is Joe Camel, the cartoon version of the camel advertisement. Here is the gun lobby kids' cartoon. It is hard to do this all in 10 minutes, but that is all my colleagues on the other side would let me have. Here are Eddie Eagle products for kids: Eddie Eagle lunch box, Eddie Eagle Jitter Critter, 3D glasses, tattoo pac, Eddie E. B-Nee baby. That is not marketing to grownups, my friends; it is marketing to kids. The gun lobby doesn't want us to look at it, but we will. When they had the tobacco lawsuits, we were able to find out what the tobacco company said in secret memos: ``If our company is to survive and prosper . . . we must get our share of the youth market.'' ``Today's teenager is tomorrow's potential regular customer.'' Sound familiar to the gun lobby? Look at what they say: ``The greatest threat we face is the lack of a future customer base. . . .'' ``We continue to look for every opportunity to reach young people. . . .'' Cigarette companies, Joe Camel, firearms company, Eddie the Eagle. I don't have any objection in terms of a family learning to hunt, but tell me what is right about teaching a 4-year-old child how to load a handgun. Yet this ad is proudly displayed in gun magazines. This child is 4 years old. This sums it all up. How is this for an ad in Gun World: ``Start 'em Young! There is no time like the present.'' This is a very young boy, maybe 15, holding a toy gun, that looks like a real gun, shooting at a can of soda. It is a little bit of a love letter from him about shooting. ``Start 'em Young!'' In the juvenile justice bill, I was fortunate enough to get through this Senate, by a unanimous vote, a study of the gun dealers marketing to children. Guess what. Ed Markey took that on the House side and got the same thing passed. So we have identical amendments in the House and Senate. Out of all of the gun amendments we passed, this is the only one that had identical language in the House and Senate. What does that mean? It means we could make this the law of the land tomorrow if there were good faith in this Republican Congress. We can in good faith take my amendment that passed here by unanimous vote, and passed over in the House unanimously, and start this study right now. But no. To all who say politics doesn't matter, let me state what this wasted time means. It means that every day they are starting them young. It means that every day, a child might pick up a gun because it so much fun--they see it in the ads. And they can pick up a gun and accidentally injure themselves or someone else. It is an unbelievable situation that a year after we passed five sensible gun measures, we have done nothing. Let me close with something from the Million Mom March from Janet Lazar of Menlo Park, CA. Listen to this. As a social worker for children and families, I have heard the voices of many children who have become victims of violence. Listen to the still voice of a child describing her mother held at gunpoint by her father. Listen to the cold, dead voice of a beautiful 15-year-old girl describe the six friends and relatives she lost to gang warfare. Listen to her bewilderment as she wonders if she will live to raise children of her own. Listen to the suicidal voice of the young man who accidentally killed his best friend as they fooled around with an unlocked handgun. She writes: My heart cries for someone to listen to the children. The time to act is now. To the creator of the Million Mom March, who is a constituent of Senator Lautenberg--and how appropriate that is--I say thank you. I say thank you for caring about the children. I say thank you for giving up your Mother's Day and coming here. I say thank you for taking a risk that maybe your idea would not catch on. I say thank you for doing what we Americans do best, acting--acting on facts, acting on information, and, yes, acting on anger. It is an honor to be on the floor today with my friend, Senator Lautenberg. It is an honor to stand by his side as we, together, fight to make sure the laws of this land reflect the priorities of the people and the mothers and the children and the families.

Mrs. BOXER. Let's be clear here about what is being objected to. This is a resolution that says to the million moms: Thank you for caring about our children; thank you for being good mothers; Thank you for giving up Mother's Day to be here, to stand for a cause that is bigger than each of us separately. It is hard for me to believe the Republicans would object to welcoming the million moms to this town, moms who are Democrats, Republicans, those declining to state--maybe they don't have a party. This is not a partisan issue. I say to my friend, thank you for bringing this to the floor. I think the American people are finally going to see who stands up for what is right.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, it was already agreed to. You already said it was agreed to.

Mrs. BOXER. Reserving the right to object, I just want to make sure that those of us who want to speak about the Million Mom March that is coming this weekend, where we may see a quarter of a million or more moms here, and thousands more across the country, are not precluded under this UC from speaking on it in morning business. If it requires an amendment to the UC, I would hope we could work that out. Otherwise, I will object because we could talk about a lot of things, but there is no question the Million Mom March deserves to be discussed. Senator Lautenberg has a resolution praising the moms, and I think we should be able to discuss that.

Mrs. BOXER. I understand. I am going to have to object at this time.

Mrs. BOXER. I want to see it. My understanding is we are going to MILCON and we will not necessarily have an opportunity to speak--maybe we can put in a quorum call until I see that.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, it is an honor to be able to talk to Mike for just a couple of minutes and to do so with my friends whom you and I care so much about and to say, particularly to Senator Wellstone, thank you for standing up in the caucus and for telling us about Mike's battle and inviting us to speak with him. The message I want to give you today, Mike, is that you have made a mark in the Senate. It is hard to do that because I am sure you know we have at least 100 fairly large egos around here. To make a mark in such a place is a tribute to you. You have made a mark among so many Senators--by the way, you picked some wonderful ones to work for--and also among staff. I don't know whether you can see the staff here, Mike, but there are quite a number of them here today. If they could grab a microphone away from us, I know they would. They also send their strong and best wishes to you and their love. It is kind of unusual for someone to have that kind of amazing respect and admiration from Senators and staffers alike. There is a reason for it. You chose this career for the right reasons--not for the power, not for the influence. In many ways, you have that through the powerful and effective people for whom you work. But that is not why you decided to make your career in public service. It is really because inside you, you have this burning feeling that we need to make life better for all the American people. That is reflected in the work you do, as well as the people for whom you chose to work. That is reflected in making life better for families, children, and workers, regardless of who they are or what their status is. But I want to tell you, Mike, I remember just a couple of weeks ago when I was feeling my oats because we had won an amendment on the floor dealing with sensible gun laws. It had been such a struggle. I found myself in the subway, going back to my office with you, Mike. Boy, I was feeling good because we don't win a lot around here these days. It was a good feeling. You looked at me and instead of saying, good work-- which is of course what I wanted to hear from you--you said: You know, we really have much more to do on this. We have to build on this. We have to take it the next step. At first, I thought, this was not what I wanted to hear. I wanted to relax and enjoy the moment. When I got back to my office I realized: He is right, we just have to build on our success. We have to keep on working and keep pushing. That gleam Mike always has in his eye really comes with this message of fighting. That is why I think he and Paul Wellstone are such a great combination. You can't have more of a fighter for the people than Paul Wellstone. It is a great and contagious quality. We need more of it around here. It is easy to give up, whatever side of the aisle you are on, or wherever you stand on the issues. It is tough to get in some of these battles. It is tough to stand and debate and fight for your point of view. There is a lot at stake, Mike, and you always understand that. I hope you can take that amazing spirit, fight, and spark with your family, engage in this fight you are in right now, and know that a lot of Members, including staff and Senators alike, really care about you and respect you so much. Thank you.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Nevada, Mr. Bryan, and Senator Reid, the assistant Democratic leader, for their incredible leadership, and I might say sometimes lonely leadership, on this issue of nuclear waste safety. I strongly oppose S. 1287. I believe the bill is bad policy. President Clinton has rejected it, and I urge my colleagues in the Senate to join him. I think it is a dangerous bill. I think it is important to note that this Senate has stopped this bill in its tracks five times at least. I believe today we will stop it again. So the question is, Why do we keep turning to this bill over and over and over again when so many people, including the President of the United States and the Vice President, have so many concerns that, in fact, it would be quite dangerous for our people? Why do we turn to it? I think Senator Reid was quite eloquent when he made the point, it is not as if we do not have other things to do. It is not as if there are not issues that are crying out to be debated and discussed on this Senate floor. He mentioned a few of those. I thought it would be good to simply summarize what I think about what he said. Clearly, we need to take up education. We are going to an education bill. However, we are now taking time away from that education debate when people want us to make it the No. 1 issue: smaller class sizes, afterschool--we know the things people want--school renovation, teacher training. We are now taking precious time of the Senate away from that when we could be starting that debate. A good Patients' Bill of Rights bill passed out of the House of Representatives. I thought the bill that passed out of the Senate was not as good. It was really a sham. I thought it was an HMO Bill of Rights for the HMOs. But that is in the conference committee. We ought to work on that. Sensible gun control--we passed five sensible gun control measures in the juvenile justice bill. Every day 12 children die of gun violence. In my State of California, it is the No. 1 cause of death among children. Senator Reid had an incredible cartoon that ran showing the amazing number of deaths. During the Vietnam war, there were 58,000 deaths over an 11-year period. In the last 11 years, we have lost 300,000 Americans to gun violence. Why are we taking up a bill that is dangerous--and I will get into why it is dangerous--when we could be making our lives less dangerous? It does not make sense. Then Senator Craig from Idaho says this administration has no energy policy. Maybe that is because the Republican side keeps reducing the amount the President wants to spend on energy efficiency, which is so important. It is the cheapest way to get more energy. Campaign finance reform is an issue Senator McCain and Senator Feingold bring continually before us. It passed in the House, but it is getting the death knell in the Senate. This is just a handful of issues. If protecting the health of our citizens is our highest priority--and indeed it should be--then we should not be taking up a bill that will expose our people to illness and danger. This is not a bill that makes life better for our people. It is a bill that is going to make life worse for our people. It has been described as a compromise bill, but, in my view, it is still an attempt to bypass and preempt science and legislate the scientific suitability of Yucca Mountain, NV, as a high-level nuclear waste dump. It is not based on reality or on fact. Instead of finding a repository that meets the health and safety standards we have established in law, this legislation attempts to weaken our health and safety standards to make Yucca Mountain fit because some people committed themselves to Yucca Mountain, and it does not seem to matter what the facts are; they just keep on going down that path. I cannot, and I will not, support such action. For many years, we have debated the suitability of a high-level radioactive waste dump at Yucca Mountain, and for years I have been on the Senate floor with my colleagues from Nevada fighting to protect the health and safety of the citizens of Nevada. I want my colleagues to know that today I am fighting not only for their citizens but for the citizens of the State of California. In fact, because of recent studies, we know that if we go forward with Yucca Mountain, it will seriously impact the people I represent. Yucca Mountain is only 17 miles from the California border and from Death Valley National Park. I have a map to show how close we are. We can see where the Yucca Mountain repository site is and how close Death Valley National Park is to Yucca Mountain. There is Yucca Mountain, Death Valley National Park in Inyo County, and then San Bernardino County. I want to show my colleagues the beauty of Death Valley National Park. This is one magnificent view of Death Valley National Park. It amazes me when we make these incredibly important investments in our environment and in the beauty of our Nation to protect and preserve it, with the next vote, we vote for a nuclear waste dump that can adversely impact on this national treasure. I will explain that. The development of Yucca Mountain has the potential to contaminate California's ground water. It poses a threat to the health and safety of Californians from possible transportation accidents related to the shipping of high-level nuclear waste through Inyo, San Bernardino, and neighboring California counties. Since its inception as a national monument in 1933, the Federal Government has invested more than $600 million in Death Valley National Park. The park receives over 1.4 million visitors each and every year. The communities surrounding the park are economically dependent on tourism. The income generated by the presence of the park exceeds $125 million per year. The park has been the most significant element in the sustainable growth of the tourist industry in the Mojave Desert. This chart is a blown-up photo of how close the national park is to Yucca Mountain and why these two counties have concerns. Scientific studies show that a significant part of the regional ground water aquifer surrounding Yucca Mountain discharges in Death Valley because the valley is downgradient of areas to the east. If the ground water at Death Valley is contaminated from nuclear waste stored at Yucca Mountain, it will be the demise of the park and the surrounding communities. The long-term viability of fish, wildlife, and human population in these areas are largely dependent on water from this aquifer. The vast majority of the park's visitors rely on services and facilities at the park headquarters near Furnace Creek. These facilities are all dependent upon the ground water aquifer that flows under or near Yucca Mountain. Unfortunately, there is no alternative water source that can support these visitor facilities and wildlife resources. So I cannot understand why, on the one hand, we create a magnificent park--we spent $600 million on it; we get tourist dollars from it--and on the other hand in another vote we endanger this magnificent monument and the people who live in the surrounding areas. Water is life in the desert. Water quality must be preserved for the viability of Death Valley National Park, the dependent tourism industry, and the surrounding communities. We do not have the science that tells us that Yucca Mountain is safe, and the potential loss is far too great. It has been hard to get the Energy Department to accept California's connection to the site. Every time they talk about the site, they talk about Nevada. Finally, they recognize that Inyo County, CA, as an effective unit of local government under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, actually qualifies. There had to be, unfortunately, a lawsuit by the county that resulted in DOE granting affected unit status in 1991. It is very important my colleagues understand that my concern comes from the local people. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a letter from the board of supervisors of the county of Inyo.

Mrs. BOXER. This letter is quite long and goes into all the objections, with detailed comments, and the concerns they have about Yucca Mountain. I think the important point here is, this is not just a Nevada issue. Even when in my mind it was, I would never subject the people of Nevada to this kind of a dangerous policy. It now includes the people of California. We are very concerned about transportation routes, very concerned about the ability of this material to migrate into an aquifer that serves the counties surrounding it, and we could go on and on. Even the Western Governors' Association has repeatedly asked the Energy Department to complete an analysis of the transportation routes to Yucca Mountain, to no avail. So we have a lot of problems with this bill in my home State of California. The radiation to be allowed at Yucca Mountain would be much higher than is allowed under current regulations. The DOE study finds that maximum doses at the site would be 50 millirems per year. I am sure my colleagues have gone into it, but sometimes you repeat facts because they are very important. I would like to put the numbers into perspective. That amount of radiation would equal approximately 5,000 chest x rays annually. It is 2,000 times higher than what the public is currently permitted to receive from an operating powerplant under EPA regulations. I will say, under NRC and DOE risk estimates, it is my understanding--I am going to just double-check here--studies have shown that if these people were exposed to the maximum, virtually all of them would get cancer. That is how much and how high these levels are. In conclusion, my colleagues from Nevada have done us a great service. Even before I knew the extent to which they were actually fighting was not only for Nevada but for California, I knew they were doing the right thing, because if we do not stand up and protect the health and safety of the people we represent, what use are we? What good are we? When a physician takes his or her test to get licensed, they say: Do no harm. At a minimum, do no harm. This does harm. If we were, in fact, to allow this matter to move forward, I think the people would become even more cynical than they are about Government. They will ask: What special interests are behind this one? How on Earth can we throw out the health and safety regulations to push through this site? Is that the best we can do for this site? I will tell you, it makes me sick at heart. The only thing that keeps me going on this one is my colleagues from Nevada, who have stood up in the face of powerful committee chairmen. And you will hear them today. Oh, you will hear them today. The Senators from Nevada have stood up for the people of this country. I stand with them. I stand with the people of California, who want to protect Death Valley National Park, who want to protect the water supply there, who want to protect our Federal investment there, who want to protect the health and safety of the people who have to drink the water and live there. So let us do what we have done five times before. Let us beat back this ill-advised attempt to put a nuclear waste dump where it does not belong. Let us feel good that we have protected the people of this country. Let us turn to the matters to make life better for our people: Sensible gun laws, an HMO Patients' Bill of Rights, education, afterschool programs, smaller class sizes, and campaign finance reform. For goodness' sake, let's do something in this Chamber that helps people, not exposes them to risk. Yesterday I was at the Albert Einstein Medical School in New York. They are doing extraordinary things to find cures for cancer, to invest in ways to make our people healthier, to work with the Federal Government to make sure we have enough money going into research. Why would we do things around here that would elevate people's risk of getting cancer? I do not understand it. It does not add up. I listened to the arguments on the other side. They simply do not add up. So, again, I associate myself with my friends from Nevada. They are courageous. They are brave. They are right. They are protecting the people of Nevada and the people of California. I hope they will be successful. I will be working with them. As I understand it, the Senator from Nevada, Mr. Bryan, will now have some time for further remarks. Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

Mrs. BOXER. This letter expresses substantial concern over this project. They are asking us to be very careful with shipments and with the entire project. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from the County of Ventura.

Mrs. BOXER. I shall not read the entire letter. The Board of Supervisors, County of Inyo--and these are the local government officials to whom my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are constantly saying we have to pay attention--let us pay attention to them. They are saying: [We] are writing to express concern with S. 1287, the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1999. They go on to say why it is flawed. They say there is a ``significant long-term risk that development of the repository places on California''--that it places California in an untenable position. In very strong language they ask that we not approve this. They say it does not ``provide adequate protection for Inyo County resources or citizens'' and that they are very concerned about it. I also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from the Board of Supervisors of San Bernardino County.

Mrs. BOXER. In this letter they reiterate their opposition to this bill. They say it would be very dangerous for their residents because the waste could be transported through Ventura County. On this map I show my colleagues, even the counties next to Inyo and San Bernardino are very upset that waste will come all through California. Ventura County is taking a stand. They say: Please vote against S. 1287. . . . I have a letter from the California Energy Commission. I ask unanimous consent it be printed in the Record.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise in recognition of California's Veterans Appreciation Month, which is celebrated in May 2000. The people of our state and our nation owe more to our veterans than we can ever repay. The world is a safer place, and our Democracy has thrived because of their heroism. This year, as in years past, the State of California is making an extra effort to assist its veterans who suffer from a lack of suitable employment. California calculates that about 40,000 of its veterans are unemployed or underemployed. This is a tragic situation for these fine men and women who have given so much to America. During the month of May, California's Employment Development Department will focus special effort to find jobs for these veterans. Local Veterans Employment Representatives and Disabled Veterans Outreach Program staff will be contacting employers, organized labor and government leaders to promote hiring veterans, and they will provide job training and job-search training to former military personnel. Quite simply, the goal of California's Veterans Appreciation Month is to show the appreciation of a grateful nation by providing the employment opportunities that veterans so richly deserve. I commend the California Employment Development Department for all its fine efforts on this program and I encourage all Americans to support similar efforts in their states.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I came to the floor of the Senate because I noted that my friend, Senator Harkin from Iowa, was talking about a very important subject, a woman's right to choose. This right has been protected. After the case Roe v. Wade in 1973, a woman has had that right. Today we are looking at a different type of constitutional amendment. Senator Harkin made the point that, in fact, we have a case being heard at the Supreme Court which is going to essentially look at a woman's right to choose. I think it is appropriate that he would come over to make a few points, and I would like to engage him in a colloquy, if he would be willing to do that. First, I ask him to reiterate for me the basic point he made. We see in the Senate tens of votes we have to face on the issue of a woman's right to choose and the different aspects of it, whether a person who lives in the District of Columbia can use her insurance paid by the city to obtain a legal abortion, whether a Federal employee has that right, whether a woman in the military has the right to use a clean medical facility to exercise her rights, whether a woman in the late stage of a pregnancy that has turned desperately wrong has the right to have her health protected. We stand here on so many occasions casting these votes, having this debate ostensibly about a narrower issue surrounding a woman's right to choose. I wonder if my friend believes that is the real goal of the people who continually bring up this matter or whether it is, in fact, something quite deep, which is trying to erode a woman's right to choose, that basic right that was given to her after the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973.

Mrs. BOXER. I was stunned that Roe v. Wade is hanging by a thread in the Senate: 51-49; is that correct? It was very close.

Mrs. BOXER. I thank my friend. I see the Senator from Arizona on the floor, so I will wrap up. I think it is interesting and important, as we look at new amendments to the Constitution, that we think about the rights we already take for granted. The women in this country have counted on the Constitution to protect their right to choose. I only hope they will continue to have that right. It is, in fact, hanging by a thread here in the Senate with only 51 votes supporting that basic decision. So I say it is a day to look at our rights, as we are looking at victims' rights, or their lack of rights, and what ways we want to make sure victims have rights, and that we also consider if a woman is denied a fundamental right to have control over her own body, if she is denied that, she will be a victim--a victim of this Government thinking that, in fact, it knows better than she or the people who love her, and that the Government would think it would know better than her family, her God, and her conscience to make such a basic decision. So it is a good day to talk about Roe v. Wade. As we look at new rights we are giving people, let's also make sure we don't take away any rights. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER. There were a couple of Members who were not here. To think that a basic right won by women when we were very young, in 1973, all those years ago, would be hanging by a thread in the year 2000 is really amazing. I really do pray that the Supreme Court, as they independently decide these issues in this particular case of the Nebraska statute will recognize that what the Senator from Iowa says is absolutely true. It is so important. We have a big debate over some made-up terminology that doesn't even exist in medical books. There is no such thing as partial-birth abortion. There is either a birth or an abortion. That is it. The description of the method used is really a method that is used in the early stages of a pregnancy as well. So if, in fact, that Nebraska case is upheld, women will be denied what is considered by many doctors to be the safest method. That undermines Roe because Roe was a very moderate decision. It basically said that before that fetus is viable, the woman has an unfettered right to choose. But at any stage in the pregnancy, one thing has to come first: the woman's life and the woman's health. I say to my friend, when we get into a pattern of outlawing specific procedures and playing doctor--by the way, we do have one doctor in this Senate, but he is not an OB/GYN--when we start to play doctor in the Senate, we are going to endanger women's health. If we start outlawing procedures we don't like--by the way, there is no medical procedure--something that is gruesome or you don't get upset by--if we start doing that, we will overturn Roe right here because we will be saying a woman's health really is subordinate, doesn't matter, and what does it matter if a woman can't have a particular procedural and as a result she is paralyzed or can never bear another child? It would be a disaster, and it would be overturning this basic right. So I want to say to my friend that I appreciate his leadership. I enjoy working with him on this because we feel so deeply about it. Before he leaves, I will make one more comment. I trust my friend mentioned this, but I am not sure because I was on my way over here. The House of Representatives denied the House the opportunity to vote on the Harkin-Boxer amendment. The House of Representatives in this year has used a gag rule, if you will, to deny the Members of the House a chance to stand up for or against Roe v. Wade. I wonder what they are so afraid of. Are they afraid that some of their Members are so to the right on this issue and so against public opinion, it would hurt them in their reelection? Now is the time to be heard, when Roe is hanging by a thread, and we need to have a vote over there. I hope my friend will continue to press this point, as we say together that it is wrong to deny the House a chance to vote up or down on Roe. I ask my friend for his closing comment on that.

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

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, each year on April 24, we pause to remember the tragedy of the Armenian genocide. On that date in 1915, more than two hundred Armenian religious, political, and intellectual leaders were arrested in Constantinople (now Istanbul) and killed, marking the beginning of an organized campaign to eliminate the Armenian presence from the Ottoman Empire. This brutal campaign would result in the massacre of a million and a half Armenian men, women, and children. Thousands of Armenians were subjected to torture, deportation, slavery, and murder. More than five hundred thousand were removed from their homes and sent on forced death marches through the deserts of Syria. This dark time is among the saddest chapters in human history. But Armenians are strong people, and their dream of freedom did not die. More than seventy years after the genocide, the new Republic of Armenia was born as the Soviet Union crumbled. Today, we pay tribute to the courage and strength of a people who would not know defeat. Yet independence has not meant an end to their struggle. There are still those who question the reality of the Armenian slaughter, who have failed to recognize its very existence. We must not allow the horror of the Armenian genocide to be either dismissed or denied. Genocide is the worst of all crimes against humanity. As we try to learn from the recent genocidal conflicts in Kosovo and Rwanda and prevent future atrocities, it is especially important to remember those who lost their lives in the first genocide of the twentieth century. We must never forget the victims of the Armenian genocide.