Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I support this treaty and will allow it to be cleared by the full Senate. I will continue to work with the Cho family and the South Korean government and hope that it can be resolved in a timely matter.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, for several months, I have been working on a case with the South Korean government on behalf of a family in California. The family, Mr. and Mrs. B.K. Cho, are concerned about actions taken against them in South Korea in 1984. At that time, the Cho family owned one of the largest construction companies in the country. The Cho family alleges that their holdings were illegally transferred to two other companies, Cho Hung Bank and Daelim Industries. They also accuse officials of the then Chun government of ordering this transfer. Soon after their property was taken from them, the Cho family left for the United States. They have filed a lawsuit in California against Cho Hung Bank and Daelim Industries and their U.S. subsidiaries. Because of the strong concerns I have about this case, I had asked that this particular treaty be delayed until I had the opportunity to further explore this matter. One of the concerns raised by the family was that the Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MOFAT) had not served the court petition to the Cho Hung Bank and Daelim Industries. I have now been assured that this action has been taken. I ask unanimous consent that a letter dated September 22, 1999 from the First Secretary of the Congressional Section of the South Korean Embassy be printed in the Record.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, although I am a longstanding supporter of financial services modernization, I will vote against S. 900--the Financial Services Modernization bill. I am concerned that this bill does far too little to ensure the privacy of individuals. Over the past three or four years we have seen an explosion of mergers in the financial services industry. Citibank and the Travelers Group merged. And in my home state, BankAmerica--California's biggest bank--merged with NationsBank. All of these mergers, in my home state and elsewhere, will undoubtedly have a major impact on consumers. And while we do not know what that impact will ultimately be, I believe we do know it will impact our privacy. Why? Although most Americans believe their financial data is private, they are wrong. In fact, current law allows banks to do basically whatever they want with the personal information they collect from their customers in the course of doing business. Banks can provide a consumer's name, address, account balance, payment history, even his account number and social security number to their affiliates. And they can sell that information to third parties without even notifying the customer whose information has been sold. Given that banks already share and sell the personal information of their customers, why then do I oppose this bill? I oppose it because I believe the bill will heighten the existing problem. Mr. President, S. 900 will heighten the problem because, as noted by Robert Scheer in a November 2 Los Angeles Times editorial, ``. . . [the bill] allows banks, insurance and brokerage firms to merge not only their equity but also the vast accumulation of computerized records on consumers' buying habits, health treatments, investments and credit history.'' The tearing down of walls that now exist between banks, insurance firms, and securities firms, in this highly technological and computerized era, means the information now being shared will expand exponentially. There will be more information to share, more comprehensive information to share, and more people with whom to share it and to whom to sell it. Privacy rights are most vulnerable in the information age. And while I realize we cannot turn back the clock, I do believe we as policy makers can and should provide some parameters for the sharing and selling of personal information. Unfortunately, despite all of the talk of self regulation, financial institutions provide little if any privacy protections. The legislation before us does nothing to improve this situation. Finally, I understand that many financial institutions have complained that stronger privacy protections in the context of financial services modernization are unworkable, too costly to implement, and will, in part, defeat the purpose of allowing banks, insurance companies, and brokerage firms to affiliate. I reject these arguments for two specific reasons. First, at least one large U.S. financial institution offers its European customers the kinds of privacy protections it contends it cannot offer its U.S. customers. In 1995, that institution agreed to allow their German customers to ``opt-in'' to having their non-public financial information shared with other companies. Second, it is the current policy of some U.S. financial institutions not share their customers' personal information without first getting the permission of those customers or allowing those customers to ``opt- out'' of such sharing. And those institutions, American Express and U.S. Bancorp among them, apparently have not found such policies overly burdensome or competitively disadvantageous. In closing, proponents of this legislation suggest the privacy provisions included in the bill are sufficient. Indeed, some have suggested the privacy provisions contained in this bill are historic. And although some small steps have been made, like the notice provision which requires financial institutions to tell customers about their policies for disclosing nonpublic personal data and the provision which prevents stronger state consumer privacy laws from being pre- empted, I believe the steps are far too small. I wish I could support this bill. As I said at the outset, I am a longstanding supporter of financial services modernization. I do not believe, however, the privacy of consumers should be, or need be, sacrificed for such modernization. Mr. BENNETT addressed the Chair.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation to pay tribute to a former colleague of mine and a fellow Californian, former Congressman Mervyn Malcolm Dymally, by renaming the post office located at 701 South Santa Fe Avenue in Compton, California, currently known as the Compton Main Post Office, as the Mervyn Dymally Post Office Building. Mr. Dymally came to this country in 1945 from Cedros, Trinidad, British West Indies. In 1960, he began his political career by working as a field coordinator for John F. Kennedy during the Presidential campaign. Mr. Dymally's own service as an elected official began when he was elected to the California State Assembly in 1963 and then to the State Senate in 1967, where he served for eight years. Next, he was elected Lieutenant Governor of the State of California and was the State's highest ranking black elected official. Building on a career of political success, Mervyn Dymally was elected to the United States House of Representatives in 1981. During his six terms in office, he served on several committees, including the Post Office and Civil Service Committee; the Committee on the District of Columbia, where he chaired its Subcommittee on Judiciary and Education; and the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, where he was the Chair of the Subcommittee on International Operations. As the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Africa, Mr. Dymally's passion became immediately evident when he visited 20 African countries in his first year. He worked tirelessly to raise awareness of the plight of Africans and to monitor U.S. assistance levels to African and Caribbean nations. Throughout his distinguished career, he was recognized for his leadership in humanitarian efforts. Since retirement from Congress in 1992, Mr. Dymally is busier than ever. He serves as President of the Grace Home for Waiting Children and as Chairman of the Caribbean Action Lobby. In addition, he is the President of a consulting firm and a Professor at the Central State University in Ohio. He still travels frequently, serving as Honorary Consul to the Republic of Benin, West Africa and Vice President of the Pacific Century Institute. Designating the Compton Main Post Office as the Mervyn Dymally Post Office Building is an honor befitting his service to his community and to the State of California. Mr. President, I ask that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. The bill follows:

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation to pay tribute to a former colleague of mine and a fellow Californian, former Congressman Augustus F. Hawkins, by renaming the Federal building located at 10301 South Compton Avenue, in Los Angeles, California, currently known as the Watts Finance Office, as the Augustus F. Hawkins Post Office Building. Gus Hawkins was born in Shreveport, Louisiana in 1907. His family moved to Los Angeles when he was 11 to escape the racial discrimination that was prevalent in the South at that time. This experience made him a passionate advocate of racial justice and social equality, and he committed his life to the service of others. His efforts began in the California Assembly where he passed the state's first law against discrimination in housing and employment. Building on that success, he passed other important legislation concerning minimum wages for women, child care centers, workers' compensation for domestic employees, and the removal of racial designations on state documents. In 1962, Gus was elected to the United States House of Representatives. During his 28 years in office, he served on the Committee on House Administration, and served as Chairman for both the Joint Committee on Printing and the Committee on Education and Labor. He authored more than 17 federal laws dealing with civil rights, educational improvements, job training and employment opportunities. He fought tirelessly for the rights of children, the poor, the disabled, the elderly, and minorities. Throughout his distinguished career, Gus was recognized as a hardworking man of integrity who cared little for personal accolades while concentrating on the issues affecting his constituents. He has continually pursued fairness and opportunity for all. Designating the Watts Finance Office Building as the Augustus F. Hawkins Post Office Building is an honor befitting his 56 years of service to his community and to the State of California.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation to pay tribute to a former colleague of mine and a fellow Californian, former Congressman Augustus F. Hawkins, by renaming the Federal building located at 10301 South Compton Avenue, in Los Angeles, California, currently known as the Watts Finance Office, as the Augustus F. Hawkins Post Office Building. Gus Hawkins was born in Shreveport, Louisiana in 1907. His family moved to Los Angeles when he was 11 to escape the racial discrimination that was prevalent in the South at that time. This experience made him a passionate advocate of racial justice and social equality, and he committed his life to the service of others. His efforts began in the California Assembly where he passed the state's first law against discrimination in housing and employment. Building on that success, he passed other important legislation concerning minimum wages for women, child care centers, workers' compensation for domestic employees, and the removal of racial designations on state documents. In 1962, Gus was elected to the United States House of Representatives. During his 28 years in office, he served on the Committee on House Administration, and served as Chairman for both the Joint Committee on Printing and the Committee on Education and Labor. He authored more than 17 federal laws dealing with civil rights, educational improvements, job training and employment opportunities. He fought tirelessly for the rights of children, the poor, the disabled, the elderly, and minorities. Throughout his distinguished career, Gus was recognized as a hardworking man of integrity who cared little for personal accolades while concentrating on the issues affecting his constituents. He has continually pursued fairness and opportunity for all. Designating the Watts Finance Office Building as the Augustus F. Hawkins Post Office Building is an honor befitting his 56 years of service to his community and to the State of California.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation to pay tribute to a former colleague of mine and a fellow Californian, former Congressman Mervyn Malcolm Dymally, by renaming the post office located at 701 South Santa Fe Avenue in Compton, California, currently known as the Compton Main Post Office, as the Mervyn Dymally Post Office Building. Mr. Dymally came to this country in 1945 from Cedros, Trinidad, British West Indies. In 1960, he began his political career by working as a field coordinator for John F. Kennedy during the Presidential campaign. Mr. Dymally's own service as an elected official began when he was elected to the California State Assembly in 1963 and then to the State Senate in 1967, where he served for eight years. Next, he was elected Lieutenant Governor of the State of California and was the State's highest ranking black elected official. Building on a career of political success, Mervyn Dymally was elected to the United States House of Representatives in 1981. During his six terms in office, he served on several committees, including the Post Office and Civil Service Committee; the Committee on the District of Columbia, where he chaired its Subcommittee on Judiciary and Education; and the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, where he was the Chair of the Subcommittee on International Operations. As the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Africa, Mr. Dymally's passion became immediately evident when he visited 20 African countries in his first year. He worked tirelessly to raise awareness of the plight of Africans and to monitor U.S. assistance levels to African and Caribbean nations. Throughout his distinguished career, he was recognized for his leadership in humanitarian efforts. Since retirement from Congress in 1992, Mr. Dymally is busier than ever. He serves as President of the Grace Home for Waiting Children and as Chairman of the Caribbean Action Lobby. In addition, he is the President of a consulting firm and a Professor at the Central State University in Ohio. He still travels frequently, serving as Honorary Consul to the Republic of Benin, West Africa and Vice President of the Pacific Century Institute. Designating the Compton Main Post Office as the Mervyn Dymally Post Office Building is an honor befitting his service to his community and to the State of California. Mr. President, I ask that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. The bill follows:

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, last July, when the Senate considered the Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill, I offered an amendment to prohibit the sale of guns to people who were intoxicated. State and local laws prohibit intoxicated people from operating a car, a boat, a snowmobile, a plane, an all-terrain vehicle, or a bicycle. There is even one state law that prohibits an intoxicated person from getting a tattoo. In addition, federal law prohibits an intoxicated person from enlisting in the military. And, federal gun laws prohibit the sale of a gun to a drug user. My amendment simply built on this record. All it said is that if you are intoxicated, you cannot buy a gun or ammunition. To me, it just makes common sense that someone who is drunk should not be able to buy a gun. And, the Senate agreed because my amendment was passed unanimously. Unfortunately, Mr. President, the conference committee dropped this provision from the bill. I am extremely disappointed that such a common-sense proposal would be abandoned by the Senate leadership. So, today, I am introducing--along with my colleague, Senator Lautenberg--this very reasonable proposal as a free-standing bill. Mr. President, guns and alcohol do not mix. A 1997 study in the Journal of American Medical Association found that ``alcohol and illicit drug use appear to be associated with an increased risk of violent death.'' And as the two stories I want to share today illustrate, alcohol is also associated with an increased risk of serious injury. The first story is about a woman by the name of Deborah Kitchen. She is a quadriplegic, and she got that way because her ex-boyfriend shot her. On the day of the shooting, Deborah's boyfriend, Thomas Knapp, consumed--by his own estimate--a fifth of whiskey and a case of beer. He went to K-Mart in Florida to buy a .22-caliber rifle and a box of bullets. Mr. Knapp was so intoxicated that the clerk had to help him fill out the federal form required to purchase the gun. But he was still able to buy the rifle. Mr. Knapp then took that rifle, shot his ex-girlfriend Deborah Kitchen, and left her a quadriplegic. The second story is from Michigan. It involves an 18-year-old named Walter McKay, who had engaged in a day-long drinking spree and then went and bought ammunition for his shotgun. He was so intoxicated that he could not remember whether it was a man or woman who sold him the ammunition and could not identify what he purchased. He took those shotgun shells, loaded his gun, and intended to shoot out the back window of an acquaintance's truck. He was intoxicated. The shot missed, ricocheted off the wheel of the truck, and hit Anthony Buczkowski. Mr. Buczkowski had to have a finger amputated and his left wrist surgically fused. Mr. Knapp and Mr. McKay could buy a gun and ammunition because it is not--I repeat, not--against the law to sell a gun or ammunition to someone who is intoxicated. Mr. President, as I mentioned earlier, states and localities have all sorts of laws prohibiting people who are intoxicated from doing certain things. But, I am unaware of a single state law that prohibits someone who is drunk from buying a gun or ammunition. It would be nice if states would act. But, gun sales are largely regulated at the federal level and involve federal licenses and federal forms. This is a federal responsibility, and there should be a federal law that stops this outrage. That is what my bill does. If you are intoxicated, you would not be able to buy a gun or ammunition. It is very reasonable, and it will save lives.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am introducing the California Indian Land Transfer Act, which would transfer to eight California tribes approximately 3,500 acres of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land to be used for housing construction, grazing, resource protection, and non-gaming economic development. The eight tribes are the Pit River Tribe (Modoc County), the Fort Bidwell Indian Community (Modoc County), the Pala Band of Mission Indians (San Diego County), the Cuyapaipe Band of Mission Indians (San Diego County), the Manzanita Band of Mission Indians (San Diego County), the Barona Band of Mission Indians (San Diego County), and the Morongo Band of Mission Indians (Riverside County). All of the parcels of BLM land are contiguous to existing reservation trust lands and have been formally classified as suitable for disposal through the BLM land use planning process. Many California Indian tribes now lack reservations of sufficient size to provide housing or an economic base adequate to meet the needs of their members and their families. Other California Indian reservations have such poor quality lands that the tribal options for economic development are extremely limited. This situation derives from the complex history of federal-tribal relations in California. Instead of the approximately 8.5 million acres of land promised in the treaties, the California tribes now reside on a little more than 400,000 acres. Approximately one-third of California's 107 federally recognized tribes have a land base of less than 50 acres; approximately two-thirds have a land base of less than 500 acres, leaving little opportunity for these tribes to develop viable communities and economies where their members can live and work. The counties in which these lands are located support the tribes' efforts to acquire these lands and have participated in the federal land planning process through which these parcels were identified and made available for transfer to the tribes. This legislation also has the support of the Administration. A similar bill, H.R. 2742, passed the House of Representatives last Congress and was placed on the Senate's consent calendar but was never brought to a vote before adjournment. An earlier version of the bill suffered the same fate in the 104th Congress and I am informed that the negotiations between the Department of the Interior and the Tribes for transfer of these lands date back to 1994. This legislation is the result of a multiyear cooperative effort by the tribes, the Secretary, the BLM and the Bureau of Indian Affairs, in consultation with local country governments. This effort allows me to present a model legislative blueprint for interagency transfer of federal lands as a means of enhancing the extremely limited land and resources base of California's small tribes. The bill also stands as an excellent example of federal, tribal, and local governmental consultation and collaboration within the planning process for disposition of federal lands that have been formally classified as suitable for disposal. It is time for Congress to do its part and conclude this successful intergovernmental collaboration. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and letters of support from the eight tribes and four counties affected by this legislation be included in the Record.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am introducing the California Indian Land Transfer Act, which would transfer to eight California tribes approximately 3,500 acres of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land to be used for housing construction, grazing, resource protection, and non-gaming economic development. The eight tribes are the Pit River Tribe (Modoc County), the Fort Bidwell Indian Community (Modoc County), the Pala Band of Mission Indians (San Diego County), the Cuyapaipe Band of Mission Indians (San Diego County), the Manzanita Band of Mission Indians (San Diego County), the Barona Band of Mission Indians (San Diego County), and the Morongo Band of Mission Indians (Riverside County). All of the parcels of BLM land are contiguous to existing reservation trust lands and have been formally classified as suitable for disposal through the BLM land use planning process. Many California Indian tribes now lack reservations of sufficient size to provide housing or an economic base adequate to meet the needs of their members and their families. Other California Indian reservations have such poor quality lands that the tribal options for economic development are extremely limited. This situation derives from the complex history of federal-tribal relations in California. Instead of the approximately 8.5 million acres of land promised in the treaties, the California tribes now reside on a little more than 400,000 acres. Approximately one-third of California's 107 federally recognized tribes have a land base of less than 50 acres; approximately two-thirds have a land base of less than 500 acres, leaving little opportunity for these tribes to develop viable communities and economies where their members can live and work. The counties in which these lands are located support the tribes' efforts to acquire these lands and have participated in the federal land planning process through which these parcels were identified and made available for transfer to the tribes. This legislation also has the support of the Administration. A similar bill, H.R. 2742, passed the House of Representatives last Congress and was placed on the Senate's consent calendar but was never brought to a vote before adjournment. An earlier version of the bill suffered the same fate in the 104th Congress and I am informed that the negotiations between the Department of the Interior and the Tribes for transfer of these lands date back to 1994. This legislation is the result of a multiyear cooperative effort by the tribes, the Secretary, the BLM and the Bureau of Indian Affairs, in consultation with local country governments. This effort allows me to present a model legislative blueprint for interagency transfer of federal lands as a means of enhancing the extremely limited land and resources base of California's small tribes. The bill also stands as an excellent example of federal, tribal, and local governmental consultation and collaboration within the planning process for disposition of federal lands that have been formally classified as suitable for disposal. It is time for Congress to do its part and conclude this successful intergovernmental collaboration. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and letters of support from the eight tribes and four counties affected by this legislation be included in the Record.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, last July, when the Senate considered the Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill, I offered an amendment to prohibit the sale of guns to people who were intoxicated. State and local laws prohibit intoxicated people from operating a car, a boat, a snowmobile, a plane, an all-terrain vehicle, or a bicycle. There is even one state law that prohibits an intoxicated person from getting a tattoo. In addition, federal law prohibits an intoxicated person from enlisting in the military. And, federal gun laws prohibit the sale of a gun to a drug user. My amendment simply built on this record. All it said is that if you are intoxicated, you cannot buy a gun or ammunition. To me, it just makes common sense that someone who is drunk should not be able to buy a gun. And, the Senate agreed because my amendment was passed unanimously. Unfortunately, Mr. President, the conference committee dropped this provision from the bill. I am extremely disappointed that such a common-sense proposal would be abandoned by the Senate leadership. So, today, I am introducing--along with my colleague, Senator Lautenberg--this very reasonable proposal as a free-standing bill. Mr. President, guns and alcohol do not mix. A 1997 study in the Journal of American Medical Association found that ``alcohol and illicit drug use appear to be associated with an increased risk of violent death.'' And as the two stories I want to share today illustrate, alcohol is also associated with an increased risk of serious injury. The first story is about a woman by the name of Deborah Kitchen. She is a quadriplegic, and she got that way because her ex-boyfriend shot her. On the day of the shooting, Deborah's boyfriend, Thomas Knapp, consumed--by his own estimate--a fifth of whiskey and a case of beer. He went to K-Mart in Florida to buy a .22-caliber rifle and a box of bullets. Mr. Knapp was so intoxicated that the clerk had to help him fill out the federal form required to purchase the gun. But he was still able to buy the rifle. Mr. Knapp then took that rifle, shot his ex-girlfriend Deborah Kitchen, and left her a quadriplegic. The second story is from Michigan. It involves an 18-year-old named Walter McKay, who had engaged in a day-long drinking spree and then went and bought ammunition for his shotgun. He was so intoxicated that he could not remember whether it was a man or woman who sold him the ammunition and could not identify what he purchased. He took those shotgun shells, loaded his gun, and intended to shoot out the back window of an acquaintance's truck. He was intoxicated. The shot missed, ricocheted off the wheel of the truck, and hit Anthony Buczkowski. Mr. Buczkowski had to have a finger amputated and his left wrist surgically fused. Mr. Knapp and Mr. McKay could buy a gun and ammunition because it is not--I repeat, not--against the law to sell a gun or ammunition to someone who is intoxicated. Mr. President, as I mentioned earlier, states and localities have all sorts of laws prohibiting people who are intoxicated from doing certain things. But, I am unaware of a single state law that prohibits someone who is drunk from buying a gun or ammunition. It would be nice if states would act. But, gun sales are largely regulated at the federal level and involve federal licenses and federal forms. This is a federal responsibility, and there should be a federal law that stops this outrage. That is what my bill does. If you are intoxicated, you would not be able to buy a gun or ammunition. It is very reasonable, and it will save lives.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Absolutely. My friend is right. We held a number of press conferences before the last increase of the minimum wage--which now seems like history, it was so long ago--where we brought that point out that 60 percent of the people on minimum wage are adult women who are supporting their families. They work very hard. If they work full time at a minimum wage job, I say to my friend, they are way below the poverty line. They are earning about $11,000 a year. For a family of three or four, they can barely make it. They can't feed their kids, pay their rent, or buy many clothes at all. So the bottom line is, my friend is right. When we talk about minimum wage, we should get behind what that means. What that means is, if we do not raise it, people in this country will be hungry, children in this country will be hungry. We already have many children living in poverty. That is the largest group of our citizenry living in poverty. I want to ask my friend to comment on something here, if he would do me that favor. I am so proud of his leadership and that of Senator Daschle today in framing the issues. When I heard the Senator from North Dakota go back and forth with my friend from Nevada on the Social Security issue, I was very glad they raised this issue on the floor. Because of the fact that we have a social safety net for seniors in this country, we have seen that the people in poverty no longer are the senior citizens. We should all be proud of that. But I want to read just a few lines from an editorial that ran in the San Diego Union Tribune. It was written by a man named Lionel Van Deerlin who, for many years, was in Congress.

Mrs. BOXER. Yes. I have been waiting 3 days to see us get into a debate on the things that matter to people--things such as the minimum wage and environmental protection.

Mrs. BOXER. I am so proud of the Senator's leadership today on this issue and so many others. I think these ads are going to backlash. In the end, the truth will come out. The American people are fair people. The American people are going to judge us, and they are going to judge us harshly on what we say and what we do. But they want the truth. I do believe that with this kind of writing by Congressman Van Deerlin, who left the Congress a long time ago but still carries a tremendous amount of respect, his being, in his own conscience, unable to let this go and writing such strong words with a sense of humor--and editorials are popping up all over the country--I think the Republican Party is going to find a backlash across this Nation. I believe in my heart people will understand what they are doing. It is fair to attack a candidate, a Senator, a Presidential candidate, a President on an issue. It is fair to do that. It is not fair to make up a story, make up a scenario because you have taken a poll and you know you are on the wrong side. As I said today, the Republicans say they created a lockbox for Social Security. They forgot to tell us, they have the key. They already opened up that lockbox to give $18 billion to the programs they want. It is similar to the crab apple analogy before. They are taking out those apples, $18 billion, and then they hold the key. The bottom line is, to say we are not protecting Social Security doesn't pass the smell test or the laugh test or the test of time or the test of history. I am, again, proud of my friend for taking the floor.

Mrs. BOXER. I am glad you carry that around because if you were to listen to these ads on TV, you would think the Republicans thought of the idea of Social Security and Medicare, when, in fact, they fought it every inch of the way. Just a few years ago, in 1994, Dick Armey, in addition said if he were here, he wouldn't have voted for Social Security. So this is what Lionel Van Deerlin writes. GOP House and Senate members invariably lined up in opposition to these social programs. As Casey Stengel would advise, you could look it up. He writes further on: Yet when President Roosevelt's original Social Security bill neared passage the following year, every Republican present voted to ``recommit'' the measure. To send it back to committee, that is, to kill it. He goes on: Today's GOP generation offers little more to warm one's hands on. House Majority Leader Dick Armey, a one-time economics professor, has openly urged the phasing out of Social Security. And no less a prophet than ex-Speaker Newt Gingrich tipped his hand upon taking the gavel in 1995. ``Let it wither on the vine,'' was his chilling suggestion for dealing with a system vital to the support of nearly 45 million Americans. He continues: I offer the foregoing compendium from public records, not to belittle or embarrass decent, often likable leaders of past and present. They did not climb the ladder with subnormal IQs, nor by ignoring ordinary folk in their respective states and districts . . . no matter how earnestly Armey, DeLay, [and the Republicans] ask us to trust them in regard to Social Security, I offer this advice: Don't. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the editorial from which I just quoted.

Mrs. BOXER. Yes.

Mrs. BOXER. Correct, from the San Diego area. He is now a senior citizen himself and quite sharp, as you can tell from this. I am going to read probably just 2 minutes' worth of his words, and I would love my friend to comment. It is called ``Trusting the GOP to `save' Social Security.'' For anyone who just fell off the turnip truck, Republicans in Congress have a new rallying cry--``We won't let them raid Social Security!''. . . . [Tom] DeLay [who is the Republican whip in the House] asks us to believe that the Social Security trust fund is under assault by Democrats, and we must trust his party [the Republican Party] to protect it. I'd sooner entrust a lettuce leaf to a rabbit. Credibility surely matters. In probing the violence at Grandmother's house in the woods, whom do we believe, Little Red Riding Hood or the wolf? Here is one of those demonstrable facts of history: And he goes on: Had it been left to the Republicans in Congress, we'd never have had Social Security in the first place. Nor Medicare. He says: GOP House and Senate members invariably lined up in opposition to these social programs.

Mrs. BOXER. I think one of the reasons people are disillusioned today and do not participate in the greatest democracy in the world is that they believe their voice does not count. They believe money talks. And listening to the debate we had on this floor, with the Senator from Kentucky on their side of the aisle leading that fight, I am sure they have concluded they are right. The Senator equates money with speech. It was, to me, one of the saddest debates I have ever heard around here. People do not vote, they do not participate, because they believe they do not count. Ordinary people, average people, they can't make the $1,000 contribution, or the $5,000, or the $10,000, or the $20,000 contribution, or, frankly, the $100,000 and $200,000 contributions of soft money that come into play here. I think it was a very sad situation when the Republicans, defying a majority of this Senate--and we had a majority vote for campaign finance reform--took that piece of legislation and threw it into the graveyard, along with all the other things our Democratic leader and our assistant Democratic leader have talked about--all the important things: The HMO reforms, the teachers, the policemen, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and a number of other issues that they have thrown into that graveyard, the last one being campaign finance reform.

Mrs. BOXER. I thank my leader for his comments and his spirit because it is the spirit we need in this country, which is the can-do spirit. We can take care of the people's business, even if it is difficult for my friend. I know it is because I know the kind of goodness he has in his heart. This isn't his favorite moment to come down to the floor and have to express his feelings of dismay and his anger, frankly. My friend listed bills that are in the landfill, the graveyard. I want to ask the Senator about three other issues that I think are in danger of joining in that Republican graveyard: The 100,000 teachers, the 100,000 police, and decent, qualified judges who have been waiting for years to get a vote. I wonder if my leader would comment on those three areas, as well.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mrs. BOXER. We will fight for the truth.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Speaking about a bipartisan spirit, it was unnerving this morning to come to the floor and hear some of the partisan attacks I heard, mostly aimed at President Bill Clinton, in particular at his budget priorities, which Democrats share. At some point in the discussion this morning, it approached a near-hysterical level. I will talk about what the differences are. I think we can breach those differences and resolve our problems. Putting 100,000 teachers in the classrooms to reduce class size, everyone in America wants us to do that, I believe. We have already put 30,000 of those teachers in the classrooms, and we are simply asking to continue the program. This Republican budget would mean sending pink slips to those teachers. That is wrong. We ought to sit down and resolve it. Secondly, in continuing our efforts to put more police on the streets, we have seen a tremendous reduction in the crime rate. We know one of the reasons is putting more community police on the streets. Surely we can find a compromise with the Republicans on this point. Then, paying our U.N. dues. How can we lead the world if we don't at least do that, while encouraging and demanding reforms at the United Nations? I thought it was resolved. It has not been resolved. Funding peace agreements, that has not been resolved. We can't be the world leader if we don't do that. I think these differences are important. There are also environmental riders, giveaways to big special interests. They are wrong. We should sit down and resolve them. The one that really is extraordinary, with the partisanship that surrounds it, is the Social Security issue. Republicans say they have a lockbox and the Democrats want to go into Social Security and destroy it. In some ways, it is rather laughable. Going back to 1994, House majority leader Dick Armey said: I would never have created Social Security. If we look back at the record, we will find the Republicans voted against a retirement benefit for the people of this country when Social Security was voted on. They voted against Medicare. Now they are going forward with TV commercials telling people they are the party that is going to protect a program they didn't even like and didn't even want. It doesn't even pass the laugh test. Here is the deal. They have a lockbox. They say: We are never going to touch it. That is good. However, they forgot to tell you something-- they have the key. They have opened it up, and they have taken $18 billion out of it already, according to their own Congressional Budget Office. That is not Barbara Boxer saying it. It is their own Congressional Budget Office that stated they have gone into Social Security for $18 billion. So why don't we just sit down and talk--talk about the legislative graveyard that has been created in the Senate. What is in there? HMO reform. People can't get the health care they need and deserve. That is in the garbage heap. Sensible gun laws, the juvenile justice bill, that is in the graveyard. They put the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in there; campaign finance reform; judicial appointments; long-term protection of Medicare and Social Security; minimum wage is in the legislative graveyard. As Senator Mikulski said, these were lost opportunities to us. So I feel very strongly that we have more work to do. We should sit down with the President and resolve these differences. Lastly, I hope we can move forward on some of these judgeships. Judge Richard Paez and Marsha Berzon were nominated years ago, voted out of the committee on a bipartisan vote. Judge Paez has been waiting almost 4 years to get a vote. Marsha Berzon has been waiting almost 2 years. Later, when I get to talk about these nominees in detail, I will tell you the strong Republican support they have--Republican Congress people, Republican sheriffs, and Republican law enforcement officials in the State of California. These are good nominees. I have put a hold on a particular nominee the majority leader wants for the TVA. I have no problem with that nominee. I voted him out of committee. He has been waiting 27 days for a vote, Marsha Berzon has been waiting 2 years, and Richard Paez has been waiting almost 4 years. I see the majority leader on the floor, and I promised that when he arrived I would stop this talking in morning business. So I will do that. I urge everyone to come to the table in a bipartisan spirit, do the unfinished business, resolve the budget differences, and get moving with some of these appointments that have been waiting for years, simply for an up-or-down vote. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Correct; for 7 minutes. Then if the majority leader does come to the floor and needs it, I will suspend in the midst of that time.

Mrs. BOXER. Thank you very much.

Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Chair. I also thank Senator Roth for giving me this opportunity to speak about a number of subjects as in morning business.