Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. We were given it from people in your State supporting it.

Mrs. BOXER. I am happy to yield on your time.

Mrs. BOXER. I am happy to yield to the Senator.

Mrs. BOXER. They say we need to do this in order to uphold our agreement with Canada to protect the Porcupine caribou herd which depends upon the refuge for its survival. In closing, I am very pleased to join with Senator Roth. I thank my ranking member, Senator Lautenberg, for being so supportive of this amendment when I offered it in the committee. We delivered every single Democrat for the environment. I was proud of that. I was very pleased we had an additional vote in the committee from the Republican side, Senator Snowe. I thank her from the bottom of my heart. Again, this is a bipartisan issue. It dates back to the Eisenhower administration. Let us stand together across party lines. Let us get rid of this $1.2 billion revenue. It is wrong to put it in there because it is wrong to drill in this refuge. It is wrong to put it in there because it, frankly, isn't going to happen.

Mrs. BOXER. They gave it to your people in Alaska, the Alaska Wilderness League.

Mrs. BOXER. I also have a letter written by the Ambassador from Canada saying that it is very important we support Senator Roth's legislation. I ask unanimous consent to have that printed in the Record.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank Senator Roth for offering this amendment. I offered almost an identical amendment in the Budget Committee, and it failed on a tie vote. I am very hopeful that we will do better on the floor of the Senate. We were able to pick up one Republican in the committee. We had all the Democrats. I think we have a good chance of picking up, with the help of Senator Roth and Senator Chafee, some more on their side of the aisle. This amendment would strike from the budget $1.2 billion in receipts that the budget resolution assumed would be received from oil exploration or drilling operations in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. I stand with those who have spoken very eloquently tonight, and say that we cannot allow that beautiful, pristine sanctuary--one of the most remarkable wildlife habitats in the world--to be spoiled. We have a beautiful picture, with which I am sure Senator Murkowski is familiar. The wildlife refuge was established in 1960 by a Republican President, President Dwight D. Eisenhower. And it was for the benefit of his generation and future generations; that is, all of us. I think we have an obligation to keep that going, just as he kept it going for us. From the very beginning, support for this refuge has been bipartisan. Thank goodness we see evidence of that on the Senate floor. Too few times, I am sad to say, do we see such bipartisanship. That is why I am delighted to work with Senator Roth on this. This land that President Eisenhower set aside in the Arctic wilderness is ecologically unique. It is the last remaining region where the complete spectrum of Arctic and sub-Arctic ecosystems can be found. It includes the highest peaks and glaciers of the Brooks Range. President Eisenhower's Secretary of the Interior, Fred Seaton, called the new Arctic Refuge ``one of the most magnificent wildlife and wilderness areas in North America . . . a wilderness experience not duplicated anywhere else.'' Nothing has changed since then. It is still there. But we can destroy it here. I am stunned that the Budget Committee let this go. I am stunned the majority on the Budget Committee put in $1.2 billion as if we were going to allow this to happen next year. We are not going to allow this to happen. I would like to say tonight to my good friend from Alaska, whom I respect--we have some good arguments now and then, and we probably will have them again--that we are going to fight this out. To put $1.2 billion in as if we were going to start getting receipts from this next year makes no sense at all. I can guarantee--I shouldn't say that because you never can guarantee anything around here, but I believe we will have more than 41 people who will stand on their feet as long as it takes to stop that from happening. To put it in the budget resolution, No. 1, is wrong because it is presuming the Senate is going to approve this when I don't believe it will happen. This area is tremendously rich with nearly 200 different wildlife species including polar bears, grizzlies, wolves, caribou, and a whole list of others, including millions of migratory birds. Amazingly, birds from the Arctic Refuge fly to or through every State in the continental United States of America. This is not only an Alaska issue. We all benefit from this refuge. I cannot reconcile the concept of drilling with a wildlife refuge. It seems to me they don't go together. If you are going to set aside a wildlife refuge, you should not allow drilling there at all. Drilling will raise disturbing questions about what our refuges are for. If wildlife are not guaranteed protection from oil drilling, where are they safe? My colleague, Senator Roth, has introduced legislation, of which I am a cosponsor, which would forever safeguard this great national treasure by designating it wilderness area. This permanently protects it from oil exploration and development. That protection is warranted and reasonable. As Senator Durbin has pointed out, nearly 95 percent of the arctic slope is available to industry for oil and gas development. It makes sense to shield this last remaining piece. I hope Chairman Roth's wilderness proposal will get full consideration. Instead, what are we seeing? Instead of moving forward with that wonderful piece of legislation that has bipartisan support, we have a budget resolution that essentially slaps its hand at Senator Roth's legislation and includes $1.2 billion, as if we will open it up without a fight. It isn't going to happen. It is not realistic. It is funny numbers. It isn't going to happen. We are not going to let it happen. What we should be doing is passing Senator Roth's legislation for our wilderness instead of plugging in a number. It reminds me of the fight over the Presidio. Senator Murkowski from Alaska helped me save the Presidio. One year, I say to Senator Murkowski, there was a plug put in the budget of $1 billion for selling the Presidio. As I explained to my friends, that will never happen; the city and county of San Francisco would not allow this magnificent former military base to become anything other than a park; you are not going to get $1 billion there. Finally, I prevailed on my colleagues. They backed off and we never put the plug in. And we are prevailing tonight. Don't put that $1.2 billion plug in because it is not real. It is wrong. It goes against what we ought to be doing. I understand the rising gas price phenomenon because I am in a State that has some of the highest gas prices. Believe me, it hurts at the pump. We are looking at $2 a gallon where I come from. My constituency wants me to do something about it, and I have come up with a plan. The plan is pretty straightforward. No. 1, why are we exporting gas from Alaska to other countries when we need to use it here? That is 68,000 barrels a day. Second, why don't we increase the energy efficiency of SUVs and light trucks? That will bring 1 million barrels a day. We can do that to get them up to 27 miles per gallon. That can be done. Why don't we say there should be a moratorium on the oil company mergers? We know less competition brings higher prices. It is the rule of a capitalistic system. We need more competition. That is what we ought to be doing. We ought not be drilling in a wildlife refuge on the coast of California or any of our magnificent offshore areas. The American people realize this. I have letters favoring Senator Roth's bill. Tonight I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record letters from several environmental organizations, including the League of Conservation Voters, that will use this as a scored vote.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, it is a pleasure to alert my colleagues to the March 31 dedication of Willie Mays Plaza at the new Pacific Bell Park in San Francisco. This dedication is the first in a series of events leading to opening day on April 11, when the hometown Giants begin a new era against their old rivals the Los Angeles Dodgers. The opening of the new park is cause for great excitement among baseball fans in San Francisco, in California and throughout the country. Situated a short distance from downtown and directly on the Bay, Pacific Bell Park is both an architecturally stunning building and a state-of-the-art baseball facility. Notably, it is the first privately financed professional ballpark in the United States in 35 years. And unlike the Giants former home at Candlestick Park, PacBell Park is for baseball only. Willie Mays Plaza is located at the main entrance to the park at Third and King Streets. In recognition of Willie Mays' number, the official address of the stadium is 24 Willie Mays Plaza. In addition, the plaza features 24 palm trees and a nine-foot bronze sculpture of the hall of famer. This handsome public space is a fitting tribute to a living legend. It is very appropriate that the Giants have chosen to honor Willie Mays in this way. Arguably the greatest all-around player to ever play the game, if Willie Mays is not synonymous with baseball, he is certainly synonymous with the Giants. He began his career with the team in 1951 and made the move to San Francisco with the club in 1957. All told he played 20 years in a Giants uniform. Over the course of his fabled career, he hit 660 homeruns, had 3,283 hits and 1,903 runs batted in. And if this were not enough, he scored 2,062 runs, stole 338 bases, earned 12 consecutive Gold Gloves and had a career batting average of .302. A true student of the game, it is small wonder that Willie Mays remains a hero to countless fans the world over. After a brief stint with the New York Mets at the very end of his career, Willie Mays soon returned to the Giants. Since his retirement in 1972, he has never strayed far from the game or the organization. He is currently Special Assistant to Giant's President Peter Magowan. In this capacity, he is an ambassador for the team at all manner of civic and charitable events. On the field and off it, Willie Mays has always embodied dedication, teamwork and the pursuit of excellence. In naming this prominent part of Pacific Bell Park in his honor, the San Francisco Giants are assuring that the Say Hey Kid's example will grace this city, this team and its loyal fans for many years to come.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise to oppose amending the Constitution of the United States to outlaw flag burning, and I will support the McConnell statute to punish flag burners who want to incite violence. The flag stands for freedom, and so does our Bill of Rights. I believe that both must be protected. Colin Powell recently wrote, ``I would not amend that great shield of Democracy to hammer a few miscreants. The flag will still be flying proudly long after they have slunk away. Finally, I shudder to think of the legal morass we will create in trying to implement the body of law that will emerge from such an amendment.'' As our good friend John Glenn, a great Senator, a great astronaut, and a great Marine, once declared, ``[I]t would be a hollow victory indeed if we preserved the symbol of our freedoms by chipping away at those fundamental freedoms themselves. Let the flag fully represent all the freedoms spelled out in the Bill of Rights, not a partial, watered- down version that alters its protections.'' We can solve this problem with an amendment that is identical to a statute written by the Senator from Kentucky, the Flag Protection Act of 1999. This amendment would protect the flag of the United States from being destroyed or damaged in certain situations. Under this amendment, any person who destroys or damages the flag of the United States with the primary purpose and intent to incite or produce imminent violence or a breach of peace will receive a stiff fine, imprisonment, or both. This amendment also increases the fine and imprisonment penalties for damaging a flag belonging to the United States or damaging a flag on Federal land. I support this amendment because I believe that our flag is the very symbol of our liberty, unity, and equality as a nation--a proud reminder of the democracy we hold so dear. But while we should protect the American flag, we also must remain vigilant in our protection of the Constitution. This amendment stands on solid constitutional ground. Although the statute criminalizes the destruction or damaging of the American flag with the intent to provoke imminent violence or breach of the peace, Supreme Court precedent supports this approach. In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), the Court upheld the constitutionality of laws that prohibit expression calculated, and likely to cause, a breach of the peace. So I support this amendment because it not only protects our American flag, but it also preserves the rights and freedoms established in the United States Constitution. Today, we have an opportunity to protect our flag. But just as important, we can preserve the constitutional ideals symbolized by the flag.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I am pleased to introduce legislation to expand the boundary of Sequoia National Park to include Dillonwood Grove. The 1,540-acre Dillonwood Grove is the largest privately owned stand of giant sequoias and borders the southern boundary of Sequoia National Park. The Dillonwood and Garfield Groves together form one of the five largest giant sequoia groves in the world. The Garfield Grove is already in the Park. Management of these groves as a single unit as part of the National Park will reunite the 3,085-acre Dillonwood- Garfield Grove, historically separated in name only. For more than one thousand years, the massive trunks of Dillonwood's giant sequoias have towered above the headwaters of the North Fork of the Tule River at the foot of Moses Mountain in California's southern Sierra Nevada. Home to mountain lions and bears, Dillonwood's canyons and steep mountain ridges funnel wind currents flown by some of the last California condors seen in the wild. More than a thousand years ago, Indians gathered at a high-elevation summer camp below Dillonwood's granite outcroppings. In the late 1800s, early settlers operated a mill on the site. Today a healthy, 120-year-old giant sequoia forest is rising among the ancient monarch trees. No second-growth giant sequoia forest of this age is currently fund anywhere in the Park. The Save-the-Redwoods League has negotiated an option to purchase the Dillonwood Grove for $10 million, based on its appraised value. This funding will be equally matched by federal and non-federal sources. I am pleased that my Republican colleague Congressman Radanovich introduced the identical bill in the House last week. I also want to thank my colleague Senator Feinstein for cosponsoring my bill. Dillonwood's rich natural and cultural heritage will be an important and significant addition to the legacy of our national parks. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I am pleased to introduce legislation to expand the boundary of Sequoia National Park to include Dillonwood Grove. The 1,540-acre Dillonwood Grove is the largest privately owned stand of giant sequoias and borders the southern boundary of Sequoia National Park. The Dillonwood and Garfield Groves together form one of the five largest giant sequoia groves in the world. The Garfield Grove is already in the Park. Management of these groves as a single unit as part of the National Park will reunite the 3,085-acre Dillonwood- Garfield Grove, historically separated in name only. For more than one thousand years, the massive trunks of Dillonwood's giant sequoias have towered above the headwaters of the North Fork of the Tule River at the foot of Moses Mountain in California's southern Sierra Nevada. Home to mountain lions and bears, Dillonwood's canyons and steep mountain ridges funnel wind currents flown by some of the last California condors seen in the wild. More than a thousand years ago, Indians gathered at a high-elevation summer camp below Dillonwood's granite outcroppings. In the late 1800s, early settlers operated a mill on the site. Today a healthy, 120-year-old giant sequoia forest is rising among the ancient monarch trees. No second-growth giant sequoia forest of this age is currently fund anywhere in the Park. The Save-the-Redwoods League has negotiated an option to purchase the Dillonwood Grove for $10 million, based on its appraised value. This funding will be equally matched by federal and non-federal sources. I am pleased that my Republican colleague Congressman Radanovich introduced the identical bill in the House last week. I also want to thank my colleague Senator Feinstein for cosponsoring my bill. Dillonwood's rich natural and cultural heritage will be an important and significant addition to the legacy of our national parks. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, gasoline prices have reached astronomical levels. Nowhere has this price increase been more apparent than in California. For several years now, we have been experiencing gasoline prices well above what the rest of the nation has faced. But now, this problem, which started on the West Coast, has moved east and is affecting everyone. On Monday, the Energy Information Administration reported that the average price of gasoline in the United States was $1.52 per gallon--the tenth straight week gasoline prices have gone up. That price is 52 cents higher than the national average price just one year ago. As I said, in California, the problem is even worse. The average price for a gallon of gasoline is now $1.79--up 57 cents per gallon from this time last year. These prices are all-time highs. Mr. President, I believe that there are several steps that can be taken to address this problem and to help American consumers. We should impose a moratorium on major oil company mergers. We must have vigorous enforcement of the antitrust laws. We should increase the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standard for SUVs and light trucks so that it equals the standard for cars. And, we should ban the exportation of crude oil from Alaska's North Slope. I want to talk about this last suggestion, because it is the subject of a bill I am introducing today, called the Oil Supply Improvement Act. For 22 years--from 1973 to 1995--the export of Alaska North Slope oil was banned. We banned it to reduce our dependence on imported oil and to keep gasoline prices down. Unfortunately, at the behest of oil producers--and despite warnings of higher gasoline prices--the ban was lifted in 1995. Clearly, the fears of those of us who opposed lifting the ban have become reality. The General Accounting Office has confirmed that lifting the export ban resulted in an increase in the price of crude oil by about $1 per barrel. In fact, some oil companies have used their ability to export this oil to keep the price of gasoline on the West Coast artificially high. The Federal Trade Commission makes this charge in its lawsuit to block the merger of BP-Amoco and Arco. That suit also alludes to secret internal company documents showing that there was price manipulation. Alaska North Slope oil was exported specifically to keep gasoline prices on the West Coast high. Mr. President, I am not suggesting that this bill alone is the complete solution. It is only one piece of the puzzle, and only one of the things that I am suggesting. But when we have an energy shortage in this country, we should not be sending the oil in this country somewhere else. This is oil that is on public lands--and that is transported along a federal right-of-way. Taxpayers own this product. In this time of an energy shortage, it is time to put American consumers and industry first.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, gasoline prices have reached astronomical levels. Nowhere has this price increase been more apparent than in California. For several years now, we have been experiencing gasoline prices well above what the rest of the nation has faced. But now, this problem, which started on the West Coast, has moved east and is affecting everyone. On Monday, the Energy Information Administration reported that the average price of gasoline in the United States was $1.52 per gallon--the tenth straight week gasoline prices have gone up. That price is 52 cents higher than the national average price just one year ago. As I said, in California, the problem is even worse. The average price for a gallon of gasoline is now $1.79--up 57 cents per gallon from this time last year. These prices are all-time highs. Mr. President, I believe that there are several steps that can be taken to address this problem and to help American consumers. We should impose a moratorium on major oil company mergers. We must have vigorous enforcement of the antitrust laws. We should increase the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standard for SUVs and light trucks so that it equals the standard for cars. And, we should ban the exportation of crude oil from Alaska's North Slope. I want to talk about this last suggestion, because it is the subject of a bill I am introducing today, called the Oil Supply Improvement Act. For 22 years--from 1973 to 1995--the export of Alaska North Slope oil was banned. We banned it to reduce our dependence on imported oil and to keep gasoline prices down. Unfortunately, at the behest of oil producers--and despite warnings of higher gasoline prices--the ban was lifted in 1995. Clearly, the fears of those of us who opposed lifting the ban have become reality. The General Accounting Office has confirmed that lifting the export ban resulted in an increase in the price of crude oil by about $1 per barrel. In fact, some oil companies have used their ability to export this oil to keep the price of gasoline on the West Coast artificially high. The Federal Trade Commission makes this charge in its lawsuit to block the merger of BP-Amoco and Arco. That suit also alludes to secret internal company documents showing that there was price manipulation. Alaska North Slope oil was exported specifically to keep gasoline prices on the West Coast high. Mr. President, I am not suggesting that this bill alone is the complete solution. It is only one piece of the puzzle, and only one of the things that I am suggesting. But when we have an energy shortage in this country, we should not be sending the oil in this country somewhere else. This is oil that is on public lands--and that is transported along a federal right-of-way. Taxpayers own this product. In this time of an energy shortage, it is time to put American consumers and industry first.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I will take 60 seconds at this time, and then I will yield to Senator Daschle, who will speak on his leader time. I am so proud he has come over to the floor. I wish to say in this minute, before my friend from Rhode Island leaves, what an amazing addition he is to this Senate. I say that from the bottom of my heart. I served with him in the House and he was a great House Member. I predict he has an unbelievable future in the Senate. Why do I say that? Because he has courage, because he has conviction. He is not afraid to take the floor on issues that are difficult; to take on, perhaps, some of the special interests that, believe me, do not take kindly when you stand up and speak from your heart about issues that impact on their bottom line. In this case, it is the bottom line of groups out there that want us to take no action against gun violence. We have a plan. We have a great plan that passed the Senate. It is endorsed by so many law enforcement groups and the vast majority of the American people. I can think of no more appropriate speaker than our Democratic leader to tie the pieces together and to talk about why the time is ripe. I did offer a similar resolution to that of Senator Reed. I am proud to cosponsor his. It got 49 votes--49-49. We didn't know that or Vice President Gore would have broken the tie. Next time we will be ready. I yield the floor, and I will reclaim it when my leader is finished.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank my Democratic leader for his comments and his continual leadership on the gun issues that impact the people of our Nation. I want to set into the Record a series of facts, a series of statistics, a series of numbers. I know sometimes when you lay down a series of numbers such as this, people's eyes glaze over and they lose track of what you are talking about. I urge everyone listening to this to think not about the numbers so much as the people behind the numbers. In the year 1997, which is the last year for which we have statistics, 32,436 people died from gunshots in America--more than 32,000 people. I want everyone to think about what it would mean to you if any of these 32,000 people were from one of your families, what it would mean to you if it was your dad, if it was your mom, if it was your child, if it was your grandma, if it was your grandpa. Twelve children die every single day from gunfire. Actually, if you average it out, it is between 12 and 13 children under the age of 18-- each and every day. Our children are dying. And what are we doing? We are dithering around doing nothing about it. I understand that this week we are going to take up a flag desecration amendment. There are those who believe we need to protect the flag by authoring an amendment changing the Bill of Rights for the first time in our history to specifically spell out an antidesecration flag amendment. I will be supporting a statute, a bill, to protect the flag. I do not think we need to go to such a step as amending the Bill of Rights. But be that as it may, flag desecration is an issue. In over 200 years, there has been an average of one flag desecration a year, and we are acting again. Mr. President, 32,436 people died in 1997--in 1 year--and we are doing nothing. Why can't we protect the flag and take care of protecting the people? Why can't we protect the desecration of the flag by a statute that is easy to do and then bring up the juvenile justice bill and protect the thousands of people who are dying each and every year? What about the desecration of the children, of the families? In the 11 years of the Vietnam war--one of the most tragic periods in our history--58,168 fine, wonderful, glorious Americans died in combat. There is a number, a number that is enshrined on the wall on that beautiful memorial down here that we all go to often--and we should go to often--to pay our respects. It was a war that destroyed so many families; and so many veterans who came back then committed suicide because of that war. It was a time in our history when our country came to its knees; 58,168 Americans died in Vietnam over an 11-year period. Let me tell you how many Americans have died over an 11-year period from gunshots not related to any war: 395,441 Americans. Mr. President, 58,168 Americans died in the Vietnam war; 395,441 Americans died from gunshots in an 11-year period. What are we doing about it? Nothing. That is the equivalent of almost seven Vietnam wars over an 11-year period. What are we doing about it? Nothing. We hear the NRA President say: We should do nothing. His answer is give more guns to people. For every American who dies from gunfire, another three are injured. Over that 11-year period, we have almost a million people injured from gunfire. They could be paralyzed. These could be very serious injuries, and sometimes they are. Fifty people killed or injured in school shootings in America in the last year. Thirty-one percent of children age 12 to 17 know of someone their age who is carrying a gun-- gun-packing children. We are to blame. They are not to blame. We are the grown-ups. We set the rules. This is a society of law and order. What are we doing about it in the Senate? Nothing. Fifty percent of children age 9 to 17 are worried about dying young. What kind of America do we have now? When I was growing up, I didn't think I was going to die young. I thought I was going to go to school, get an education, have a family, work, have a life of fulfillment. I never thought for one minute that that could all be ended by a gunshot from a friend, a classmate on the street, in a McDonald's, in a drive- by shooting, road rage. We had better face our problems. We have the greatest country in the world, but we have problems. We need to face them. We are not here to ignore problems. We are not here to say everything is great. We need to act on our problems. This is a problem. Listen to the law enforcement groups that back us on this when we say bring out the juvenile justice bill. The juvenile justice bill; that is the one bright spot. We passed it in a bipartisan fashion about a month after Columbine, with Al Gore casting a tie-breaking vote on one of the most important amendments. This is what we passed. We closed the gun show loophole--Senator Lautenberg's amendment--that allowed criminals to walk into a gun show and simply get it. He could be crazy. He could be a felon. He could be intending to kill people on the street, to kill people in a school, to harm himself. He could walk into a gun show without having a background check. But if he went into a gun store, he would have to have a background check. All we did was close that loophole. What is the Senate doing about it now? Nothing. It is languishing in the committee. We banned the importation of high-capacity clips which are used in semiautomatic assault weapons. That was Senator Feinstein's amendment, a very important amendment. We prohibit the domestic manufacture of those clips, but the importation continues. These clips are coming in. We simply say: End that importation. We passed that. We passed the Kohl amendment requiring that child safety locks be sold with every handgun. We passed the Boxer amendment which required the Federal Trade Commission and the Attorney General to study the extent to which the gun industry markets its products to juveniles. These companies are manufacturing guns that resemble toys, that are sold to youngsters and get them interested. We made it illegal with the Ashcroft amendment to sell or give a semiautomatic assault weapon to anyone under the age of 18. Five amendments, we passed them in a bipartisan way. They went off to conference, and they have been languishing for now 9 or 10 months. It is the same with Senator Reed's amendment. It is time to stop the dithering. It is time to stop bowing to the National Rifle Association and bowing to the gun lobby. It is time to stand up and be courageous, bring those amendments forward, protect our children, and stop the carnage that is happening in our country. Who supports these five sensible gun control amendments? Senator Leahy, in his wonderful opening remarks today, put them forward: The International Association of Chiefs of Police, International Brotherhood of Police Officers, Hispanic American Police Command Officers Association, Police Executive Research Forum, Police Foundation, Major Cities Chiefs, Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, the National Sheriffs Association, the National Association of School Resource Officers, the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives. We cannot have a more diverse group of law enforcement. We have five important, sensible gun control laws that passed the Senate, that went into a conference committee. If one reads how a bill becomes law, they know how it is done: A bill has to pass the House; a bill has to pass the Senate. The juvenile justice bills passed both bodies. You then go to the conference committee. Both sides sit across from each other and talk about what belongs in the bill. They bring the bill forward, and we vote up or down. This bill has languished for 10 months. Now, what is some good news? Senator Daschle alluded to the Smith & Wesson agreement. Smith & Wesson is the largest manufacturer, if not one of the largest, of handguns. They have made an agreement as part of a lawsuit because gun manufacturers are now being sued for these deaths. They have agreed that all their handguns and pistols will now be shipped with child safety devices. Within 2 years, the handguns will be manufactured with internal locks. If a child picks up a gun and they don't know the combination, they will not be able to turn and hurt anyone--sensible. Within 1 year, all pistols will be designed so they can't be readily operated by a child under the age of 6. Handguns must pass a performance test. That gets to a bill I have about banning junk guns. They will drop these guns down. They will see if they go off. A lot of these handguns are so cheaply made, they fire when you don't want them to, and when you need them to, they jam up. They are not good products. They are junk guns. Smith & Wesson is going to put forward a test. Every handgun will be designed with a second hidden serial number so they can be traced in a crime--another very important point. The company will sell only to authorized distributors and authorized dealers who adhere to a strict code of conduct. That means they will perform the background check. They will make sure the person coming in is not inebriated, is not high on drugs, doesn't have a criminal record, isn't under age. They will not sell any gun at any gun show unless every seller at the gun show conducts a background check. They will not sell their guns until that background check is completed, and they say it may well take 3 days. They will not sell any high-capacity magazines or semiautomatic assault weapons. They will not sell products to anyone who has not taken a certified firearms safety course. And Smith & Wesson dealers will only allow purchasers to take one gun with them at a time. They will have to wait a couple of weeks before they get their other gun. The company will devote 2 percent of its revenues to development of smart guns and within 3 years the smart gun technology, which allows only the authorized person to shoot it, will be in place. All new models will not be able to accept magazines with a capacity of over 10 rounds. There will be an oversight commission to enforce this, which will include representatives from the city and State governments, and one from the gun industry. So what I have laid out in this presentation, first of all, is the facts on violence in America--irrefutable facts. I give these facts out and my colleagues come up and say: Could this be true? Could it be true that in 11 years more than 300,000 Americans have been killed by gun violence? Could it be true that every day 12 or 13 children are killed? They can't believe it. And we send the facts to the Centers for Disease Control. We send them to the people who keep these terrible statistics, and they come back to me and say: Senator, you are right. We doubted you. We are sorry. We can't believe this is happening in America today. But it is. So we have laid out the data, the facts on gun violence in America. We have laid out the five gun provisions languishing in the conference. Commonsense gun control that passed this Senate in a bipartisan way is suddenly being smothered over there in the conference committee, and we can't get it to the floor of the Senate and the House. Day after day we read about 6-year-olds shooting 6-year-olds, 10- year-olds shooting 10-year-olds, 12-year-olds shooting 12-year-olds. We don't deserve to be here if we don't do this. We don't deserve to be here, let alone be reelected, if we don't do this. The Vietnam war brought the country to its knees. We lost 58,000 people-plus in that war. It was a most tragic period of time. I remember that time. But we now have 300,000 people-plus dying from guns in an 11-year period compared to 58,000, and we sit here dithering around doing nothing while law enforcement tells us to please act. ``We are outgunned,'' they tell us. ``We are losing people. We are losing this war.'' We have a war in our streets. I laid out the organizations that are backing these five sensible amendments. Finally, I laid out the good news of the Smith & Wesson agreement. I call on every single gun company that wants to stay in business to go ahead and duplicate what Smith & Wesson has done. I thank them for acting. They are taking the heat for acting. I think Senator Daschle is right. Maybe they acted only because they had a lawsuit. Maybe they acted only because they thought they would go bankrupt if they didn't act and people would continue to sue them. The fact is, they acted; they acted on each and every point we have made on this Senate floor. So, yes, we are going to see flag desecration brought up. We know over the last 200 years there has been one flag desecration a year on average, while every day 12 children are killed by guns; and over the past 11 years 300,000-plus Americans have been killed, and we do nothing. The juvenile justice bill is languishing--languishing--in the committee. I call on the Senators who are in charge of that conference--and they are my friends--to break the logjam and bring this legislation to the Senate floor. It passed with a bipartisan vote. Overwhelmingly, people want us to do it. The Smith & Wesson agreement proves the point that the time is ripe for these measures. I say if we do it, we will be proud; we will have done something to protect our children, protect our people, protect our communities, and turn around a blight on our country at a time of great prosperity and great hope. I see the Senator who has done such an amazing job in the Presidential race. I welcome him back. I thought the issues he raised were vital. I am glad to see him back, and as a result of his appearance on this floor, I am happy to yield at this time.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, how much time remains in the morning business period?

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I guess we have a conflict between the Washington Times and the New York Times. The New York Times writes today: ``Ending a Judicial Blockade.'' The Senate is scheduled to hold confirmation votes today that would finally end the egregious stalling by Republicans that has blocked consideration of two worthy nominees for the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, on the West Coast. Richard Paez, a respected federal district judge in Los Angeles, has been waiting four years for the full Senate to act on his nomination. Marsha Berzon, a prominent appellate litigator in San Francisco, has been waiting two years. They recite the history, then state the Senate should approve the Paez and Berzon nominations. The Los Angeles Times, editorial board, which is now dominated by Republicans, says: ``Judge Deserves Rousing Approval.'' It says: On the bench and before that as an attorney, Paez, a 52- year-old Latino, has earned a reputation for being thoughtful, fair and committed to civil rights. He would be an asset to the circuit court. The Washington Post says: Judge Paez has waited four years for the Senate to consider his nomination, and Ms. Berzon has waited two. Both nominees to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals are well qualified. It is time both were confirmed. We hear the word ``activist'' mentioned. If I were to name an activist on the Republican side of the aisle, it would be my friend Bob Smith. He is the best activist that the antichoice people have. He is an activist. He is the best activist the Humane Society has. When it comes to Judge Paez, when it comes to Marsha Berzon, I dispute the ``activist'' tag. Some have made the term ``activist'' a bad name. I don't think it is. These two nominees have temperaments that fit the court. They are well reasoned. When Judge Paez was reviewed by 15 experts in the law profession, they said his opinions will stand the test of time; that he is well reasoned. The lawyers have refuted everything that has been said on this floor by people who don't know Judge Paez. I will read statements from lawyers, the people who appear before him day after day, and anonymous quotes they gave to the Judicial Almanac when talking about Judge Paez and his temperament. We are turning the word ``activist'' into something different. Margaret Morrow had to struggle to be confirmed. I think some of my friends on the other side of the aisle think you are an activist if you have a heartbeat or a pulse, if you are alive. Nominees have to have some opinions; that is what a judge does. Accusing Judge Paez of being soft on crime is an incredible statement, because, as I understand it, a criminal sentence by Judge Paez has never, ever been overturned. To hear people talk about letting rapists and other criminals free, some might have done it but not Judge Paez. He has never been overturned on a criminal sentence in his entire career, and he has been on the bench for 18 years. Sometimes people come to the floor making an argument about the Ninth Circuit. How about putting two people on the Ninth Circuit who will make it better? That is the opportunity we have today. I will read some comments made by the lawyers who appear before Judge Paez all the time. These are people who take all sides of the issue: He is a wonderful judge. He is outstanding. He is highly competent. He is smart. He is thoughtful. He is reflective. ``I don't know anyone,'' one lawyer said, ``who hasn't been exceedingly impressed by him. He does a great job.'' ``He is very well prepared,'' says another. ``He knows more about a case than the lawyers.'' Here is another: ``I think he has a great temperament. He never says or does anything that is off. He has a good demeanor. He is professional. He doesn't have any quirks.'' I listened to my friend, Senator Smith, who is eloquent, but he is not talking about the man these lawyers know. He certainly is not talking about the man whom all the law enforcement people who have endorsed him know. We hear Judge Paez is soft on crime. Why, then, does the National Association of Police Organizations endorse him? Also endorsing him is the Los Angeles Police Protective League, the Los Angeles County Police Chief Association, the Association of Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs, the Department of California Highway Control Commissioner. Why would he have bipartisan support from California State judges and justices, such as California Court of Appeals Justice Walter Croskey, bar leaders, business leaders, community leaders, the whole Hispanic community? There is a lot of discussion about what party deserves to get the votes of the Hispanics. I hope we can rise above this, but I do hope we can listen to the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce which strongly support Judge Paez. I will read from their letter: To the Senate majority leader from the United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce: I urge you to consider the views of the U.S. Hispanic Chamber and of the Hispanic small business community as we await a decision from the Senate on the nomination of Judge Paez. Judge Paez would be a great asset to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. They conclude: I therefore urge you to listen to the voice of the Hispanic community and confirm Judge Paez to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Here is a joint statement from the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce--the businesspeople--and the Hispanic National Bar: The Hispanic community is justifiably proud of Judge Paez's achievement. He is a jurist of integrity and decency, a role model for Hispanics everywhere. Yet he has been kept waiting for more than 49 months for a Senate vote. We applaud Senator Lott's decision to give Judge Paez a vote and urge the Senate to give him full and fair consideration. They conclude: If Judge Paez's record is reviewed fairly, he will be confirmed on a bipartisan basis. I know there is some thought as we get ready for an up-or-down vote on these two nominees that there might be a motion made to indefinitely postpone this vote. I have had discussions with the Parliamentarian who believes that motion would be in order. I say it would be precedent setting. We have these candidates. They have gone through a very difficult confirmation process, being nominated a few times, getting through the committee a few times, being asked extensive questions, surviving an important cloture vote, which, frankly, they won overwhelmingly. Eighty-some Senators said they have a right to have a vote. I admire those Senators who voted for that, even though they won't vote finally for either Marsha or Richard. I make an appeal: If we vote to indefinitely postpone a vote on these two nominees or one of these two nominees, that is denying them an up- or-down vote. That would be such a twisting of what cloture really means in these cases. It has never been done before for a judge, as far as we know-- ever. Again, it would undermine what Senator Lott said when he said these people deserve an up-or-down vote. So I make a plea to my friend, Senator Smith. He and I go at it on many issues, but we are good friends and we like each other. Consider what you would do if you were to make such a motion, or another Senator would do so. You would be saying these two people do not deserve an up- or-down vote. I think that would be an undermining of the spirit of what we did yesterday. I hope we will not go that route. What goes around comes around. Then, when you have a President who sends down a nominee, you are setting your party's President up for this kind of twisting in the wind that I do not think any nominee ought to go through. I thank my friends for their indulgence. I believe very deeply we have two mainstream, strong candidates, supported by Democrats and Republicans alike, both inside the Senate and outside the Senate. We have two people who have proven their mettle. I thank them for hanging in there. I know there were times when they wondered whether it was worth it; that they had to look at their families one more time and say, ``We don't know yet. We don't know yet. We don't know when we are getting a vote.'' That is why I brought their pictures to the floor the last couple of days, to put a face on these nominees. They have children. They have spouses. They have community friends. They work hard. Their lives have essentially been in limbo--for Marsha for a couple of years. It is tough when you are in a law firm and you have been nominated. The partners don't know what to do. Do they give you more cases? Do they not? If you start a case, will you be pulled? It is a very difficult thing for an attorney in that situation. For Judge Paez, it has been tough for him to hear some of the things that have been said when he is a man who has such broad-based support in the community. Colleagues on both sides of the aisle, this is a big and important day. If there should be a motion made to indefinitely postpone this nomination, please do not support it. That would undermine what we promised these nominees way back several months ago when we told them they would have a vote. If we have that vote, please turn against it. And then, please vote for these nominees. They deserve your vote.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, thank you very much. I just arrived on the floor. I listened to some of the extensive remarks made by my friend from New Hampshire, Senator Smith. I really came over to refute some of those remarks and some of those comments. I have been through this fight over the judicial nominations once before. When Margaret Morrow was nominated and kept on the hook, people came to the floor of the Senate and said she was an activist, a liberal--the same buzzwords we are hearing. These buzzwords are: ``Out of control,'' ``liberal''--all of these words. That was a great speech. But, unfortunately, it doesn't have anything to do with Margaret Morrow, who is as mainstream and as apple pie as you can get. I say to my friend from New Hampshire, because I know people have varied opinions of this President, President Clinton, that I happen to think he has brought us out of the deepest, darkest economic nightmare we ever faced and I think will go down in history for that. But that is up to the historians. There is one thing about this President that I don't think anyone would refute. He is a pragmatist. He knows what he can get through this Senate. He certainly knows that if he puts someone before the Senate who is not in the mainstream, they are not going to get confirmed. He is not going to go through the exercise. It is very painful for people to be nominated if they have no chance of being approved by the Senate. This President doesn't do that. In all my recommendations to him, and in all of Senator Feinstein's recommendations to him, we have been very careful to make sure we refute things. I hope the Senator from New Hampshire will appreciate this. If I believe a judicial nominee is not going to pass the mainstream test, I don't even bother with it. If I don't believe a judicial nominee has Republican support, I will not even bother with it. I have had several conversations with Chairman Hatch. He has been very clear. He says: Barbara, you are not going to get people through who are not in the mainstream. You are not going to get people through who do not have bipartisan support. You will not get people through who do not have law enforcement support. Yesterday, as Senator Sessions was speaking--believe me, I respect both of my colleagues' right to vote against these two nominations, if they so choose--I pointed out this wonderful record of support these two candidates have from Republicans and Democrats alike in law enforcement. My goodness, Sheldon Sloan, the head of Governor Pete Wilson's Judicial Advisory Committee, is the one who is backing Judge Paez. Listen to this. I will repeat it. The head of Governor Pete Wilson's Judicial Advisory Committee is backing Richard Paez. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record several editorials supporting Richard Paez and Marsha Berzon.

Mrs. BOXER. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. With the Chair's indulgence, I will read to the Senate just a few of these organizations. I want the Senate to decide if these organizations are radical or in any way not in the mainstream of thought. These are just some of the organizations that say, yes, the United States should ratify this treaty to end all forms of discrimination against women: the American Association of Retired Persons; the American Association of University Women; the American Jewish Committee; Amnesty International USA; the Bahais of the United States; the Black Women's Agenda; the B'nai B'rith International; Business and Professional Women USA; Chicago Catholic Women; Church of the Brethren, Washington Office; Church Women United; Episcopal Church; the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America; Hadassah; Human Rights Watch; The Humane Society; Lawyers Committee for Human Rights; Leadership Conference of Women Religious; National Association of Commission for Women; National Coalition Against Domestic Violence; the National Coalition of American Nuns; the National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA; the National Council of Women's Organizations; the Presbyterian Church, Washington Office; the Soroptimist International of the Americas; the Union of American Hebrew Congregations; the Unitarian Universalist Association, Washington Office; the United Methodist Church; the Women's Legal Defense Fund; and the YWCA of the United States of America. I don't mind debating an issue on its merits, its demerits, its flaws, its problems. But to come to the Senate floor and say the people behind this convention to eliminate all forms of discrimination against women are radicals is simply not a fact in evidence, unless you think Hadassah is radical or the nuns are radical or all these churches and organizations are radical. They are far from radical. They are mainstream America. Mainstream America supports this, and we can't get a hearing because our chairman believes these groups are radical. I understand some tactics have been used to get the chairman's attention to hold this hearing that he does not appreciate. And that is his right. But I beg my chairman to look past that and understand that these groups are in the mainstream of America. America should be in the leadership and out front on this issue. So the first point he made, I do not agree with, that radicals are behind this treaty. Secondly, his other argument was that signing this international treaty would interfere with our sovereignty; in other words, it would interfere with us as lawmakers to do our job, would interfere with our laws. Nothing could be further from the truth. We have thousands of international treaties of which we are a part. They are all in this book. I won't put this in the Record because it would cost too much to print, but it is page after page with almost every civilized country. We have treaties with them on all kinds of things--on science, on military aid, on human rights. I will give you a couple that we signed on human rights. We are a party to a number of human rights treaties. One in particular is the U.N. Convention Against Torture, and other cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment or punishment. We ratified that in 1990. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights was ratified in 1992. The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, ratified in 1994. So to say that these treaties will interfere with us just doesn't make any sense. Again, it is just not a fact in evidence. The third reason my chairman says he doesn't want to hold a hearing is that he believes the whole purpose of this convention is to grant women the right to choose. In other words, in his opinion, this whole thing is about abortion rights. I want to say again how off the mark I think that suggestion is. When the committee voted this convention out for ratification 6 years ago, there was a big debate on this matter. What the committee did--by the way, I will support it overwhelmingly-- it said this treaty and this convention is abortion neutral. It specifically said it ``does not create or reflect an international right to abortion or sanction abortion as a means of family planning.'' It goes on, ``We don't endorse it as a means of family planning,'' et cetera. The understanding states that ``nothing in the convention reflects or creates a right to abortion'' and that ``in no case should abortion be promoted as a method of family planning.'' So these issues that the chairman of the committee has raised, in my opinion, are straw men, or straw people, or straw women. They are not fact. The fact is, when we voted out this convention 6 years ago, we specifically stated it had nothing to do with abortion. The fact is that 165 nations have passed this, and we are standing with the most retrograde, rogue states in our opposition to it. There are thousands and thousands of treaties that do not interfere with our rights of sovereignty. The fact is that it has nothing to do with abortion. The most mainstream groups--and I have read some of them to you, and they are all that way--are behind this treaty and are working very hard to get it done. Now, 21 years ago, the U.N. General Assembly adopted a treaty. Twenty years ago, President Carter signed the treaty. So it is really long overdue. I don't want to stand with Iran, Sudan, Somalia, and North Korea, as the rare nations who have not ratified this. I think it is a disgrace that we are not a party to this treaty. We know since 1981, when it entered into force, it has had a positive impact on the countries that have signed it. One such example is constitutional reform in Brazil, which brought significant guarantees of women's human rights, and CEDAW provides the framework for articulating these rights. There are many other wonderful things that have happened worldwide as a result of this treaty. Other nations have copied word for word from the treaty the kinds of rights they are going to give women in their nations. We have an important book, ``Bringing Equality Home,'' which shows how many good things have happened because of that. You might say, Senator Boxer, why does America have to act if these good things are happening? The fact is, we have to act because we should be proud that all of the things in this treaty we already do in our country. So we should be a leader, not a follower, on this. And we need that portfolio because when there is a case of a country that is not doing right by its women--and let me give you a case in point. There was a case in Kuwait where women were struggling to get the right to vote. It was a big brouhaha, and everybody thought, my goodness, we came to their assistance in the gulf war, they are going to follow suit and women will get the right to vote. Guess what happened. They did not. We were pressing them so hard, but I bet they turned to our negotiator and said, ``Wait a minute, why should we listen to you, you aren't even a party to the CEDAW treaty.'' It takes away our ability to lead for equal rights for women because we have not yet ratified. I am very hopeful that Senator Helms will have a change of heart on this, although I believe he does hold strong views. But today I learned that Congressman Gilman, who is the Republican chair of the committee called the House International Relations Committee, has agreed to hold hearings on this treaty. The fact is, it is our business, our work, our job. We are the ones who should be doing it. Although I am very pleased that the House is going to have the hearing--and I hope I can get over there and testify. But I think we should have our own hearings. After all, we have 25 Members of the Senate who were on this. I will read you the list of Senators who have gone on this, asking for hearings on this: Senators Murray, Mikulski, Collins, Snowe, Robb, Wellstone, Biden, Lautenberg, Kennedy, Sarbanes, Cleland, Bob Graham, Jack Reed, Lincoln, Feinstein, Landrieu, Feingold, Durbin, Daschle, Leahy, Dodd, Bingaman, Torricelli, Kerry, and Specter. We have many Republicans and many Democrats. I honestly think that if everyone knows about this resolution--and I will work hard on that--we will get some more. We now have a quarter of the Senate on record asking for hearings on CEDAW. My view is, since it was voted out favorably 6 years ago by the committee on a bipartisan vote of 13-5, we ought to do it again and get it moving and bring it down here for debate. Women deserve equal rights, voting rights, human rights. They deserve to be protected from violence, either in their own homes or walking down the street. They should be protected against institutional violence. We have seen things that go on in Africa with operations that are forced upon women. It is very important that for us to lead in the world, we must be a leader on this treaty. Again, I say to my friends on the other side who oppose this, I respect your right to oppose it. But, my goodness, what about having a hearing on it so we can listen to both sides? I think women in this country are waking up to this fact. There are so many issues we deal with every day. The women in my State are dealing with making it home in time to greet their children coming home from school or who are in day care. Their husbands are also working and putting dinner on the table and planning all the things they plan for their families. They are balancing their lives with their jobs. Do you know what? They care about this. I have had meetings with many women who care about this because we are on this Earth right now and we have to try to make it a better world. We can't stop every evil, that is for sure; we know that. But we can stand for equal rights and human rights for people all over the world. We can stand up and say in certain countries women are treated like second-class citizens and, in some cases, not even third-, fourth- , or fifth-class citizens; they are treated like property. They have no respect. I just believe this great Nation of ours has come a long way to have the equality we have. Sometimes I look at the young women here and I think: Do you really know what it was like before women had equality? Do you know what it was like when I went to get a job on Wall Street after graduating from college and was told: Women don't work here? The most shocking thing about it was that I said OK. And I packed up my bag and left. I didn't even argue with them. It was a given. There were only certain jobs for women. I had to study to pass my test as a stockbroker on my own without the benefit of anyone. Once I got my licensing back, I said: Now, can I please be a stockbroker, and bring commission to this brokerage house, by the way? Well, all right, but just do it quietly. We want to make it look like you are a secretary. Those were tough days. It wasn't that long ago. I know I am old, but I am not that old. We faced that kind of discrimination. Women could not vote until 1920. People look around here and say: Why aren't there more women? Believe me. I say that every day. But the bottom line is we didn't get to vote until 1920. We weren't used to power--not even the power to vote until the 1920s. We are learning how to deal with it now. But it takes time. Why shouldn't the world learn from our experience? What we know to be a fact and evident is that women are equal. By the way, it doesn't mean we are better. We are equal. We are equally good in some cases and equally bad in some cases--not better. But we know that and we respect that in this country, although I would still like to see the equal rights amendment be part of the Constitution. But basically we know that. We should take that knowledge and that commitment, and make sure the women of the world have a chance at life. I think we can do it through this treaty. I would think we would be proud to do it across the party line. I think this is going to become an issue in this election because there is no reason why we shouldn't at least hold a hearing and debate these issues. The chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee was down here today. He was eloquent in his opposition. Now I am on the floor and he is not here. I hope I have been a little eloquent on why we should pass the treaty. Why not bring that debate inside the Foreign Relations Committee where it belongs? Why not hear from Senators on both sides who care about this one way or the other? Why not vote it out? Why not come to the floor and have a good debate on these issues, and perhaps elevate the Senate? We get into our petty quarrels. Sometimes we take up issues that are, frankly, not as important as others. This one would be one that I think would make us all proud, wherever we come out on this matter and on this question. But in terms of the arguments against it, I hope I have put the other side out on the table. Good people are behind this treaty--good, mainstream American groups. The treaty is a Magna Carta for women. We ought to be proud of it. We ought to stand with the countries in the world that are civilized, that give their women equal rights and fair rights. We ought to stand with them. It is time we do it. It is International Women's Day. I will end where I started with happy International Women's Day. I hope when we think about this perhaps in the next few days and weeks and months, we will factor in a very important treaty--the Convention to Eliminate All Forms of Discrimination Against Women--on the floor of the Senate for a high- level debate and a vote. Thank you very much Mr. President. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today is International Women's Day. To all you women out there, and men who care about women, happy International Women's Day. I think it is very fitting on International Women's Day to discuss a treaty this Senate should ratify, but has not ratified in over 20 years. This treaty, signed by President Carter, almost made it to the Senate floor some 6 years ago when it was voted favorably out of the Foreign Relations Committee. Unfortunately, it was never brought up. The treaty is called CEDAW. It stands for the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women. This is a treaty that has been nicknamed the Magna Carta for women because it essentially gives basic human rights to women all over the world. That is why 165 nations, all of our allies and friends in the world, have in fact ratified it. But we haven't ratified it. One might say, well, who hasn't ratified it? I am sorry to say, we are standing with such stalwarts of democracy as Iran, North Korea, Sudan, and Somalia. We don't belong in that company. This country is, in fact, a leader of human rights. It is really an embarrassment that we have not brought that treaty to the Senate floor. I wrote a resolution that calls on the Senate to ask the Foreign Relations Committee to hold a hearing on CEDAW. It now has 25 cosponsors, including Republicans. It is very simple. It expresses the sense of the Senate that the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations--that is a committee on which I serve--should hold hearings, and the Senate should act on CEDAW, should take action on this convention to eliminate all forms of discrimination against women. The resolution goes through why this treaty is so important. It talks about how important it is that CEDAW be enacted: because it would help give women equal rights, equal opportunity, equal education; it would help them get protection against violence. We know that happens all over the world where women don't have equal rights. And it would give us the clout, if you will, the portfolio to be stronger as a world leader. The bottom line of this is that today I asked the Democratic leadership to ask unanimous consent to bring this resolution that I wrote to the floor. The resolution doesn't say ratify this convention. It simply says to the Foreign Relations Committee, please hold hearings. It was objected to by the other side of the aisle because they don't want to have this hearing. I will discuss that because it is with great respect that I bring up these differences between the two sides of the aisle. The chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, with whom I have a wonderful relationship, a very good working relationship, took to the floor of the Senate today. He unequivocally stated--and when he wants to be unequivocal, he can--that he will not hold hearings on the Convention to Eliminate all Forms of Discrimination Against Women. And he explained why. I totally respect his right to have this view, but I will paraphrase the reasons he gave as to why he doesn't want to hold hearings on this. I will offer another view. First, he said he wasn't going to hold hearings because there are radical groups behind this treaty. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a list of the organizations that have endorsed the women's convention.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mrs. BOXER. I know my friend doesn't want us to vote on Judge Paez.

Mrs. BOXER. I thank my friend very much. I want to ask him if he read what Senator Specter said regarding the two cases we raised, the Maria Hsia case and the Huang case. I ask the Senator to react to this because I think it is important. When asked if this vote ought to be put off, he said: These matters are now ripe for decision by the Senate. There has been some suggestion of a further investigation on this matter, but when Judge Paez's nomination has been pending since 1996, and all of the factors on the record demonstrate it was the Government's failure, the failure of the Department of Justice to bring these matters to the attention of Judge Paez and on the record, he has qualifications to be confirmed. In other words, what Senator Specter is saying is that Judge Paez was following the recommendation of the prosecutor. I ask my friend: When the prosecutors say this is what we think is the best for the case, is it really that unusual for a judge to say let the prosecution stand? If we want to accuse Judge Paez of something, it ought to be that he was soft on the case, No. 1. I say to my friend: It was randomly selected; he got these two cases; he didn't ask for these cases. No. 2, he followed the prosecution's request, and he is being condemned for it. My last point is--I know my friend will comment on all of this--my friend was interested in the sentencing issue surrounding Judge Paez. We have the facts on that, and he does as well. I think it is important to note that if you look at U.S. district court as a whole--