Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I agree with the Roe v. Wade decision, and what you are doing goes against it and will harm the women of this country. And I will address that when I get the floor.

Mrs. BOXER. I support the Roe v. Wade decision.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, if someone wants to stand up here on the Senate floor and attack a whole part of our America, and if they want to use cartoons on the floor of the Senate to depict a woman's body, that is up to them. But I ask the American people to be the judge both of the substance of what is happening here, the techniques that have been used, and the inflammatory level of the debate. I want you to meet a real person. I want to picture a real face--not a cartoon, but a real face--on the floor of this Senate. I want to tell a little bit about her story. This is Tiffany Benjamin: My husband and I waited until we established in our careers and could provide the best possible environment for a child. In 1994, we were thrilled with the news that we were expecting a baby. My first five months were joyous months of pregnancy. During a routine checkup my physician performed a standard AFT test. The results were abnormal. So my doctor ordered another test. Unfortunately, this test was also irregular. In my 20th week of pregnancy we discovered that our child had trisomy 13. In plain English, each cell of her body carried an additional 13th chromosome. Doctors advised that her condition was lethal. No one could offer us hope. Sadly we determined that the most merciful decision for our child-- Our child in our family-- would be to terminate my pregnancy. Although the years have passed, for us the depth of our loss is vivid in our mind. We are astounded that anyone could believe that this type of decision is made irresponsibly and without a great deal of soul searching and anxiousness. These choices were undoubtedly the most painful decisions of our lives. Please don't compound the pain of other families like ours by taking away our ability to make the difficult choices that only we can make in consultation with our physician. Please reject S. 1692 and protect our families from this dangerous legislation. I ask you to look at Tiffany with her child. Does she look like an executioner to you? Does she look like someone who didn't want to have this child and suddenly woke up and said: I have changed my mind? No. This is a loving woman, a loving family member. She had to have this procedure, and this legislation would stop her from having it. I want to tell you about another woman, Cindy, a 30-year-old mother of five living in Kansas City who said very proudly that she is a Catholic. In June of 1998, Cindy noticed a lump on her neck and called her doctor. Within weeks, she found that she had thyroid cancer and, after surgery, began iodine radiation treatment. Contrary to medical protocol, she was not given a pregnancy test prior to the radiation treatment. Cindy's body did not respond to the radiation, and blood results indicated her body still contained the deadly disease. After returning to the hospital for another treatment, her blood was drawn for a pregnancy test, but the staff did not wait for the results; they gave her another iodine radiation pill. Due to the radioactive iodine in her body, she was placed in an isolation room. No one could enter--not her husband, or her nurses, or her physician. Two hours later, she received a phone call from her physician telling her they had made a terrible mistake. Her pregnancy test came back positive. She immediately started drinking water because the doctors told her all she could do in an attempt to shield her baby from the radiation was to drink a lot of water. The next day, a second pregnancy test confirmed the first and a sonogram was ordered. That is when Cindy and her husband learned that not only was she 13 weeks pregnant but she was expecting twins, the twins they had always hoped for. Imagine the feeling of that family. Within hours, the family learned that their babies would not survive, not grow, not develop. The radiation her babies received was equivalent to the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. Cindy says: We decided that termination would be best for our family and our babies. Through our research, our insurance company told us, however, that we were on our own. And she adds: You see, as a Federal employee my insurance will not pay for elective abortions. She says because this abortion was meant to preserve her health, because of the votes in this Congress, she could not get help. She says: I have five little ones at home who depend on their mommy ever day. I didn't want to have an abortion but I needed one. And the abortion that I had would have clearly been banned by this bill, and I thank God that this bill didn't tie my doctor's hands. Let me just say that again. This is a woman who is religious. This is a woman who says to us thank God that bill wasn't law, the bill that the Senator from Pennsylvania is fighting so hard to become law. She says thank God it wasn't the law. She says this is clearly an intensely private, torturous decision. Are proponents willing to tie the hands of both parents and physicians and say to a woman: You must carry your child to term despite the fact that it has been determined the child won't live and your health will be affected? I have to say that these women who are proud to come forward to help us in a very difficult issue deserve our thanks because here they are being called the worst names in the book, being essentially told that they don't love children, that they don't care about children, when in fact these are loving moms and, in many cases, quite religious. This is the third time the Republican leadership has brought this bill before the Senate. Again, it is playing doctor without one obstetrician or one gynecologist among us. The obstetricians and the gynecologists say we shouldn't do this. The women who have had this procedure say we shouldn't do it. We are going to have a lot more debate. I know my colleague from Illinois is here, and he has a very important piece of legislation to offer. But before I give up the floor this time, I want to talk about what has happened in the courts because my colleague from Pennsylvania has made a statement I think that is fairly dismissive of what has actually happened. He says some of the courts have upheld this procedure and some have not. I will discuss what the courts have done not because I am telling my colleagues to vote against their conscience; if they want to vote for something unconstitutional, that is their right. They ought to hear the arguments made in the 20 States in which this particular procedure has been called unconstitutional. This chart shows which States have enjoined these bans. I put ``partial-birth abortion bans'' in quotes because there is no such thing. This is the political terminology. Nearly every court to rule on the merits of an abortion ban since the Senate last voted on the issue has ruled this abortion ban is unconstitutional. These are the States that have so far enjoined this Santorum-like legislation from going into effect: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, Ohio, Rhode Island, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and in Georgia and Alabama there has been limited enforcement. We have a string of decisions. I will read quotes of judges from these States--and as so many of my colleagues have said, as our President has said, we ought to listen to the States. Let's hear what the State judges are saying when they have overturned these types of bans. First, from a Federal judge in Arizona: The term ``partial-birth abortion'' is not a term found in the medical literature. Let me repeat that. The judge writes: The term ``partial-birth abortion'' is not a term found in the medical literature. The testimony of witnesses at trial indicates that this term is ambiguous and susceptible to different interpretations. The important point is, when my colleague from Pennsylvania says he only means it to be a handful of procedures, this particular judge, Judge Bilby in Arizona says no, the term is so vaguely worded it could apply to many other abortions, and that essentially would overturn a woman's right to choose. In Arkansas, Judge Richard Arnold says: As we shall explain, ``partial'' delivery occurs as part of other recognized abortion procedures, methods that are concededly constitutionally protected. Under precedents laid out by the Supreme Court, which is our duty to follow, such a prohibition is overbroad and places an undue burden on the right of women to decide whether to have an abortion. This is a judge in Arkansas saying the Santorum-type language is so broad and the procedure is so broadly explained it could, in fact, apply to any type of abortion. He ruled it unconstitutional. In Illinois, U.S. District Court Judge Charles Kocoras, said: First, the statute, as written, has the potential effect of banning the most common and safest abortion procedures. He looked at the Santorum-like bill and said it also was unconstitutional. U.S. District Court Judge Heyburn in Kentucky says: By choosing words having a broader scope, the legislature moved from arguably firm constitutional ground--banning a very limited procedure use for late-term abortions--to a quagmire of constitutional infirmity. There is a common thread among the judges--by the way, from very conservative areas of our country--who are saying the Santorum-type of ban is so broadly worded it would take away a woman's right to choose even at the early stages of pregnancy. In Nebraska, Judge Richard Arnold says: The law refers to ``partial-birth abortion'' but this term, though widely used by lawmakers and in the popular press, has no fixed medical or legal content. It would also prohibit in many circumstances the most common method of second trimester abortions . . . under the controlling precedents laid down by court, such a prohibition places an undue burden on the right of women to choose whether to have an abortion. For colleagues who say vote for Santorum; it doesn't take away a woman's right to choose, we have 20 court decisions that say it does. In certain States, they have stopped performing abortions because the doctor was afraid he would be arrested for performing an early-stage abortion. In summing up, we were elected to be Senators. We have a lot of work to do. We weren't elected to be the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. They have their own organization. We should vote down this unconstitutional bill. If we do not--because I know this is political--why else would it be before the Senate? This is politics at its worst. This is the third time the President will veto this bill. We all know we will have the votes to sustain that veto. Why go through this if not for politics? This is a debate we should not be having right now. It has been, unfortunately, in my view, very divisive so far. I hope we can get back on solid ground. Let Members not call people executioners; let Members not call families unimportant; let Members not demean women, and say the other side says the health of the woman is important. Yes, the health of women, the health of men, the health of families, that should be our paramount concern. We are not physicians. Within the context of the law, Roe v. Wade, which was decided in 1973, let Members make the decision as to what is best for our women, our families, and our children. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, the American Nurses Association--are they executioners or are they loving people who choose this field of work because they want to make people well because they have compassion in their hearts--what do they say about this? They oppose the Santorum bill. They say it is inappropriate for Congress to mandate a course of action for a woman who is already faced with an intensely personal and difficult decision. They represent 2.2 million registered nurses. They ask us to defeat this. I ask unanimous consent to have this letter printed in the Record.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, there is a letter from the American Medical Women's Association. Are these executioners, too? They work in the medical field. They say they are gravely concerned with governmental attempts to legislate medical decisionmaking through measures that do not protect a woman's physical and mental health, including future fertility, or fail to consider other pertinent issues such as fetal abnormality. And they strongly oppose governmental efforts to interfere with physician- patient autonomy. I ask unanimous consent that this letter printed in the Record.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, we have a letter from the executive vice president of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. These are the men and women who bring life into the world. These are the men and women who deliver our babies. I find it interesting when the Senator from Pennsylvania talks about breach births--I had a breach birth; I don't think he ever did, and I know what it is. I know what the risks are. I am a mother of two beautiful children. I am a grandmother of one beautiful grandson, and I tuck him in and I read him stories and I love him. I want him to grow up in a world where families are respected, where physicians are respected, where no one stands up on the floor of the Senate and calls a physician an executioner. I don't think that is a good country. I don't think that is respect. I don't think that brings healing to this issue. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said: [This bill] is vague and broad. . . . It fails to use recognized medical terminology and fails to define explicitly the prohibited medical techniques it criminalizes. That is an important point. Bills just like this one have been ruled unconstitutional 20 times. One of those decisions was in the State of Arkansas, and I am going to share those decisions with you because I think it is important. So many of us say: local control, let the States decide. The States have passed these laws, and not one of them yet has been proven constitutional or declared constitutional. But they have been declared unconstitutional because of what the doctors are saying--the language in this bill is so vague. And the language in all those bills is that they would, in fact, outlaw all abortion at any particular time during the pregnancy. So when my colleague from Pennsylvania says, well, we don't want to overturn Roe v. Wade--and perhaps we will have a chance to vote on that as well--but when he says that, that is not what the courts are saying. The courts are saying his law does, in fact, make all abortions illegal and would criminalize abortion. I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, for those who have followed this debate since it opened about an hour ago, you have heard that those of us who will fight on the floor of the Senate for moms, for our daughters, for their health, for their lives, are somehow evil and bad people. You have heard in this debate, in some of the most inflammatory language, which I think is, in essence, very dangerous for this country, that those of us who stand up to fight to make sure that every child is a wanted child, that every child who comes into this world is wanted and loved, that every woman has a right to be respected--you have heard that somehow we want to bring violence to children. You have heard the word ``executioners'' relating to doctors who take an oath ``to do no harm,'' who save lives, who bring babies into the world. Executioners. I am stunned by the tenor of the debate. I am troubled by the tenor of the debate. The majority leader was sent a letter by a number of groups asking him to please not bring this issue up this week, could he wait a week. They noted that on Saturday, we will have the 1-year anniversary of the assassination of a doctor, Dr. Barnett Slepian, who was murdered in his home, through a window, by a coward who took this man from his family. The majority leader was told there have been five sniper attacks on U.S. and Canadian physicians who performed abortions since 1994. All of those victims were shot in their homes by a hidden sniper who used a long-range rifle. Dr. Slepian was killed, and three other physicians were seriously wounded in these attacks--for making sure that women had their legal rights protected and their health protected. I think it is sad that we would have this debate, with the most inflammatory language I have ever heard on the Senate floor to date. I know the FBI and the Attorney General are going to be ever more vigilant because of this debate. I know that and I am glad about that. It is very hard for me to imagine that we could not have put this off a week. Here we are. And instead of having a debate that should be based on the merits of the discussion, it has been inflamed. Yesterday, I said if 100 doctors walked into the Senate and sat down in our chairs to practice being Senators, they would be arrested and dragged out of here. Yet here we are in the Senate --100 of us, and not one of us an obstetrician, not one of us a gynecologist--deciding what procedures should or should not be used, and under what circumstances, in a matter that should be left to the medical profession, left to the families of this country, left to loving moms and dads. So here we are practicing medicine in the Senate and not even doing a very good job of it, I might say, if you listen to the physicians who have written to us on this matter. I am going to place into the Record several letters from organizations consisting of physicians. Here is one from the Society of Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health--the people my colleague has called ``executioners.'' Ladies and gentlemen of the Senate and of this country, these are the people who bring our children into the world. These are the people who save their lives when they are hurt. These are the people we run to when they have to go to an emergency room. This is the statement: In what it claims as a tribute to mothers, the United States Senate today will vote on a bill criminalizing a procedure . . . . . . legislators supporting this ban are not celebrating mothers--but, in fact, are dishonoring and condemning motherhood by placing pregnant women at greater risk for infertility and death. These are the people to whom we turn when we are sick, and they are telling us not to pass the Santorum bill. They bring back the days before 1973: Prior to abortion's legalization in 1973, the leading cause of maternal death in this nation was illegal abortion. As Congress attempts to ban abortion, procedure by procedure, more and more pregnant women will die. As physicians concerned about the health and lives of our women patients, we believe this is a shameful celebration of motherhood. I ask unanimous consent that letter be printed in the Record.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, it is hard for me to understand why my friend objects, but that is his right to do so. I wanted the Senator from Michigan to be heard because he is feeling very strongly this particular vote we are going to have is as important as the other two votes we took on the procedural matter of cloture. If Senators believe we should have campaign finance reform, they should vote against the motion to proceed to an abortion issue that truly should not be coming before this Senate. I will have more to say on why I believe that to be the case. The Senator from Michigan, Mr. Levin, I am sure, will get the time on his own accord at the appropriate moment. As Members know, the Democratic side of the aisle was not going to object to going to the abortion issue--although many do not believe it is the right time to do so--we would not object to that and we would have been willing to go to that. It would have meant as soon as the debate was finished on that abortion issue, we would have gone back to campaign finance reform. Because of the parliamentary maneuver of the majority leader, Senator Lott, we will not be able to go back automatically to campaign finance reform if we vote to proceed to the abortion question. I make a case for voting against that. I think the best case to make is the issue we have been trying to debate for the last few days, the issue of campaign finance reform. I stood on this floor last week and admitted, with all eyes upon me, I was a user of the campaign finance system, I was good at it, I was better at it than my opponents. I know how to use the system. I have been in Congress since 1983. I learned very well by making mistakes early in my career that Members need the resources in order to answer the charges that are thrown against them. I say the system is broken for three reasons. One, the average person doesn't believe in this system. They have tuned out. They don't vote because they believe, rightly or wrongly, that it is the people with the money who are the people with the access who essentially control this agenda. They feel very left out of the system. Second, there is an appearance of corruption. Everyone who partakes in this system plays the game that to many Americans appears to be corrupt. We all play it well. The system has the potential to corrupt, and the system, at a minimum, has the appearance of corruption. Third, this system takes too much of our time away from our work, away from our jobs. I see the Senator from New York. I am proud of the kind of campaign he ran. I know it was as hard for him as it was for me to raise the kind of money we raised. We are good at it. We know how to do it. It is not necessarily to our benefit to change the system, but we know how bad it is. My friend from Minnesota, Senator Wellstone, and I were talking about dialing for dollars, when we are up and we are hoping no one is on the other end, hoping it is an answering machine so we can leave our message because it is so demeaning to have to call total strangers we have never heard of --had 100,000 donors to my campaign; I didn't know the majority of those donors--to have to ask them for money. This is not why a Senator is elected. The system is broken and needs to be fixed. People are not voting because they don't believe in the system. What does the majority leader do after a couple of days of debate? He wants to take campaign finance reform out of here. He wants to take it off the Senate floor. I think I see a pattern emerging in the Senate Chamber which I don't think is particularly good for the American people. Campaign finance reform, wheel it out the door tomorrow. The test ban treaty, we had a majority vote for that. Wheel it off the floor. Minimum wage, block it from ever coming. Lock the doors. We don't want to hear about minimum wage, even though we are in an economic recovery and the bottom economic class is not benefiting from it. The least we can do is raise the minimum wage a few cents an hour. We can't even get that through the door. He doesn't want sensible gun control. We passed it over his objection. The majority party doesn't want it here. It was wheeled out the door, into a conference committee, never to be heard from again. How many more of our children have to die before we bring that back and vote in those sensible gun control measures? The majority doesn't want real health reform. We passed a sham bill. The House passed a good one. How about going to conference, strengthening health reform so people can see the doctor they need to see, when they need to, that they can get the tests they need when they need the tests and they can live a good quality of life. No, that is shut out, wheeled out of here, never to be heard from again. School construction, nowhere in the majority's bills; 100,000 cops on the beat, nowhere in the majority's bills; school construction to begin to fix up the school classrooms, nowhere here, out the door. This is becoming a killer Congress--kill everything the people want, including campaign finance reform. I ask unanimous consent to have two editorials printed in the Record.

Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield?

Mrs. BOXER. I say to my Democratic leader, does he not believe this is part of a pattern of taking issues that are important and rejecting them out of hand and not giving a chance for these issues to be fully heard? Does he believe this is part of it?

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Massachusetts. He is eloquent on this subject. I am grateful we have been able to extend the debate on campaign finance reform at least a little bit because of this motion that has been made. On the other hand, it was our understanding we were going to be on campaign finance reform for 5 days. Sadly, we didn't have the expectation met that we would be 5 days on this particular matter. I know the Senator from Michigan is here. I ask unanimous consent upon completing my remarks the Senator from Michigan be recognized.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I find these articles interesting because they are editorials from two Republican newspapers in my State, the San Diego Union Tribune and the Bakersfield Californian. Normally I would not be reading their editorials into the Record because I usually do not agree with them, but I agree with them on this. Because I do not want to mention the name of any Senator, I will leave it out. The article from the San Diego Union Tribune says: For all the fulminations about protecting the sanctity of free speech [this particular Senator] knows that special- interest money rules. In fact, he's altogether comfortable with a system under which the National Rifle Association shoots down gun-control bills, the oil lobby secures lower royalty payments, and the telecommunications industry benefits from legislation that lawmakers passed largely on faith. This is pretty extraordinary for the San Diego Union Tribune. Of course Senator Feingold has been on this floor daily, reading us this list of contributions and showing how it lines up with the legislation that is taken up on this floor. I assure you, the people who need an increase in the minimum wage are not making contributions to any of us, OK? I assure you they are not. They cannot. They can barely put food on the table. No wonder they cannot even get their bill heard. Then the Bakersfield Californian says: Opponents of the McCain-Feingold soft-money limit piously say the law would limit the ability to buy advertising, and hence limit politicians' freedom of speech. And they say: This from a minority of senators who are muzzling free speech on the bill? That is interesting, by taking off the floor this bill for which a majority voted, they are muzzling us. That is why this vote tomorrow is so important. I want to make a couple of points about the bill waiting in the wings to come back on this floor for the third time. It is called the partial-birth abortion bill. There is no such thing as a partial-birth abortion. Ask any doctor. This is a made-up term. It is either a birth or it is an abortion. But it is fiery language. It makes people think that a woman is waking up at the end of her pregnancy and saying: I have changed my mind. Nothing could be further from the truth. What this bill is about is banning a procedure doctors say they need to save the life and health of the mother. The Senators want to come in here and play doctor and say what procedure can and cannot be used on my daughter and on everybody's daughter in the country. They are going to do it again, even though they do not have the votes to pass it over the President's veto, and even though across this country that ban has been ruled unconstitutional in 20 different states. So we are going to throw out campaign finance reform to go to a bill that does not even belong here. This subject belongs at the medical schools and in the hospitals and clinics across the country. They are the folks who have to decide how to deal with a medical emergency in the late term of a pregnancy. There is not one Senator in this Senate who favors abortion in the late term--not one. We have all voted for various bills to say no. What we do say is this: If it is an emergency to save the life of the woman, to spare her health, to keep her fertility so she can have other children, then it is up to a physician to decide. We are going back to that bill. I will be debating it along with my colleagues. There will be various alternatives. But let's be clear, let's not pull any punches here; it is all about politics. They think it is an issue that gets them some votes out there. I hope people will listen to the debate because I don't think people elected us to come here and be doctors. They go to the hospital to see a doctor, not a Senator, and they come to the Senate to hear Senators, not doctors. It is ridiculous. If 100 physicians walked in with their coats on and tried to evict us from our chairs, they would be arrested. But we come and we pass legislation telling doctors they are going to go to jail if they do something to save a woman's life or her health. Something is wrong. This does not belong here. But we are going to go to this bill for the third time. The President will veto it for the third time. We will uphold his veto for the third time. We will talk about it for the third time, and we will protect the life and the health of the women in this country for the third time. In the meantime, we are throwing off the Senate floor issues that can get through this Senate and can get a signature from this President: the minimum wage, 100,000 teachers, school construction, campaign finance reform. We can do it. We have a majority who believe in it. We can clean up the system. I wish to say a special word about the Senator from Michigan. He has shown tremendous leadership on this issue over the years. He has seen this as a moment where we can stand our ground and keep this bill on the floor of the Senate. I look forward to his remarks as well as to those of the Senator from New York. I am proud to have voted for every campaign finance reform measure that ever came down when I was in the House. Even when I was on the board of supervisors in Marin County many years ago this subject came up. So it has been many, many years. Maybe now, with this vote tomorrow, maybe now we can get 51 people to say: Keep campaign finance on the floor. My very last point: I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record one more letter.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, this is a letter signed by the National Abortion Federation, Planned Parenthood Federation, American Medical Women's Association, Medical Students for Choice, and the Executive Director of Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Wayne Shields, President and CEO, Association of Reproductive Health Professionals. This is a serious letter. This letter points out this is the very worst time to go to this abortion bill. This letter points out that ``Saturday * * * will mark the one-year anniversary of the assassination of Dr. Barnett Slepian, who was murdered at his home * * *'' while he stood in his living room; ``* * * five sniper attacks on U.S. and Canadian physicians * * * since 1994.'' I have to say this group is very concerned; this is not the time to bring up this bill. What is the rush to bring up this bill this week? Unfortunately--they sent this letter to Senator Lott--from what I understand, they did not get an answer. They are saying: Senator Lott, on behalf of our physician members, and in the interests of the public safety of the citizens of the U.S. and Canada we urge you to reconsider the scheduling of a floor debate on S. 1692. That is the bill we are going to go to. As you are aware, each time this legislation has been considered, extremely explicit emotional and impassioned debate has been aroused. They write, and I think this is very serious, I say to my friends: We have grave fears that the movement of this bill during this particularly dangerous period has the potential to inflame anti-abortion violence that might result in tragic consequences. This is a simple request. Wait a week or two before bringing this bill to the floor. So I think it would be good if we didn't go to this bill right now. I am very willing to debate it any time, any day of the year, for hours. I will stand on my feet. I will talk about the women who had this procedure who might have lost their lives or their health had they not had it. It is not a problem for me. We are going to be able to sustain a veto with this President. But at least we should put it off for a week if we are being asked to do that. For so many reasons, I hope we will not proceed to this abortion bill. If we do, we will be on the floor, we will talk about it, but I hope we will not go to it. I hope we will continue our work on campaign finance reform. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Congregation B'nai Israel in Sacramento, California, and to celebrate its 150th year of vitality and service to the Sacramento community. Congregation B'nai Israel was founded in 1849 by Moses Hyman and Albert Priest. At the time, Gold rush-era optimism was everywhere in northern California, attracting opportunity seekers from as far as eastern Europe, the home to millions of Jews desperate to escape violent pogroms and rampant anti-Semitism. With his profound ability to organize people and his unrelenting desire to help the destitute, Moses Hyman began his congregation in his home, and soon became known as a pioneer of California Judaism and father of Temple B'nai Israel. Moses Hyman, a major community philanthropist, also founded the Hebrew Benevolent Society, which assisted the sick and poor, especially during the Sacramento flood of 1850. Following that devastating disaster, Hyman purchased burial land and a nearby house of worship from a Methodist Episcopal church. Moses Hyman and Albert Priest named their new congregation B'nai Israel, which translated into English, means ``Children of Israel.'' The rebuilt temple officially opened on September 2, 1852 as the first member-owned synagogue west of the Mississippi. Congregation B'nai Israel has suffered through many hardships. After only a decade in existence, its synagogue was destroyed by fire, and only a year later, winter floods severely damaged cemetery grounds. The congregation was tested repeatedly. They mourned but then regrouped and rebuilt, emerging stronger than before. By the mid-1900s, the congregation outgrew its existing facilities and launched a major effort to build a new synagogue. Thanks to the generosity of congregants, its capital campaign was a huge success. In addition to a new synagogue, the congregation added an education wing, later named after Buddy Kandel, in the early 1960s. Congregation B'nai Israel continued to grow. The year 1986 marked additional milestones for what had become a community institution. In that year, the congregation began construction of the Harry M. Tonkin Memorial Chapel and the Sosnick Library. The much-needed addition not only led to a change in place of worship, but also an ideological change for the B'nai Israel. Tikkun Olam, the Jewish belief in repairing the world through good deeds and social action became a new found interest of the congregation, pushing further their desire to help others in the Sacramento area. Members of Congregation B'nai Israel had suffered through tremendous hardship in their history, but nothing could prepare them for the events of June 18, 1999, when a fire bomber motivated by anti-Semitic hatred destroyed their library and severely damaged the sanctuary and administration building. In an inspiring gesture of solidarity, the entire Sacramento community joined with the congregation and collectively vowed not to let violence tear Sacramento apart. In a historic event less than three days after the bombing, more than 4,000 Sacramento residents joined congregation leaders at a unity rally to protest religious and ethnic violence. Former president of the Interfaith Service Bureau, Rabbi Bloom, called for the creation of a museum of tolerance to battle against the tide of hatred. Mr. President, despite all kinds of adversity, Congregation B'nai Israel has survived for 150 years and has grown into a vital and beloved community institution. I send my congratulations and personal thanks for all it has done to help a diverse community find common ground in the Sacramento area.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I support the conference agreement on appropriations for fiscal year 2000 for the departments of Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development, and other independent agencies. I thank Senator Mikulski and Senator Bond for their hard work and commitment to providing adequate health care for our veterans and housing for our citizens. The conference agreement provides $19 billion for veterans health care, $1.7 billion more than the President requested. I am pleased that Congress has made a commitment to take care of our veterans. I do wish that we had agreed to Senator Wellstone's amendment to provide $20.3 billion, but I believe that our nation's veterans will be cared for under this legislation. Mr. President, I am very pleased that housing needs will also be addressed with this legislation. First, the agreement provides a much needed 60,000 additional Section 8 vouchers. A far greater need for vouchers exists in California, let alone across the nation. But this is a much acknowledged vital step in the right direction towards addressing the housing needs for the poorest of Americans. Second, public housing, Housing for Persons With AIDS (HOPWA), and homeless assistance programs will all experience an increase in funding. Third, the agreement also provides additional tools for preserving existing affordable housing. Specifically, HUD will be provided with significant new legal authority to address the Section 8 ``opt-out'' crisis-- including longer contract renewal terms. Last, the agreement exhibits strong support for HUD's Community Builder program. This program has been a key component of HUD's reinvention efforts and is working. I received numerous letters from elected officials and nonprofit organizations throughout California expressing support for the Community Builder program and am grateful that the conference committee agreed to reinstate earlier cuts to the program. The conference agreement also addresses other key areas, such as the environment and space exploration and research. The Environmental Protection Agency will receive $7.59 billion to carry out its important functions. The National Aeronautical and Space Administration is funded at $13.65 billion. I am pleased that the conferees agreed to restore the drastic cuts in NASA programs that were in the House version of the bill.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I assure my friend from Utah, I will not be long. I was looking at my statement, and even if I get enthusiastic and go off it, I think he is looking at 10 or 15 minutes.

Mrs. BOXER. I appreciate that, and I am sure my friend will find added comments after he listens to mine. Mr. President, I want to start off by thanking Senators McCain and Feingold for their leadership on this issue. It is nice to see this cooperation across the aisle. I like it. It is healthy for the system, it is good for the system, and we gain more respect as an institution when we work together as opposed to constantly being on opposite sides. People get suspicious; they say: Why is it they always are fighting each other? This is good, and the subject is so important and gets right to the heart and soul of who we are as a people. I also point out that it is very difficult around here to challenge the status quo. Some of us saw Senator McCain getting fairly well grilled this morning. It is every Senator's right to grill another Senator. But it is very lonely sometimes to take on the status quo. I have noticed in all my years in politics--and it has been a long time--what a legislature likes to do most is nothing, because it is easy, because if you keep it the same, you do not make waves, you do not disturb anybody, and it is comfortable. Certainly campaign finance reform is comfortable for many of us who have been in this for a long time. Ever since I have been in politics, I have been supporting reforms in campaign finance. I have been in politics, in elected office, for 23 years. That is most of my adult working life. I started in local politics. It was an issue then. Then I went to the House in 1983. It was an issue then, and it has been an issue in the Senate during the 7 years I have served. It is fair to ask: Why is Senator Boxer in favor of the most far- reaching campaign finance reform we can get? I can sum it up with three main reasons. Maybe there are 10 or 12, but I want to give the Senate the three main reasons. First of all, the system is bad for ordinary people; and I will expand on that. Secondly, the system has the appearance of corruption; and I will expand on that. And thirdly, the system is stealing precious time from public officials who are elected to do a job; and I will expand on that. First, the system is bad for ordinary people. Let me tell you why. Ordinary people feel disenfranchised. Ordinary people who cannot afford to make contributions to campaigns feel left out. Even if they were wrong on that--and I would tell people in my State, regardless of whether they make a campaign contribution or not, they are important to me. We all say that, and we mean that. They do have the vote. They are important to us. They do not believe it. They do not believe they count. They believe the people who count are the people who give $100, $500, $1,000--soft money contributions. How do we know they feel this way? They have shut us out. They do not believe us when we talk. They believe we are motivated by people who give us the big dollars, and, sad to say, they are not voting. I look at the turnout of voters, and it is sad when we see in many elections 25 percent of the electorate votes, 40 percent of the electorate votes, and there are people all over the world literally dying to stand in line to vote in countries that are struggling to get the franchise. Ordinary people feel left out. That is a danger. Secondly, the system has the appearance of corruption. Let me talk about the fight I waged on oil royalties. I do not know anyone who stood up in that debate who did not believe big oil companies were not paying their fair share of royalties. Everyone agreed; even the key opponent of my perspective that we ought to do something about it said it is true, they are not paying their royalties. I know it to be the case when the person who stands up on this floor, whoever that might be--and in another case it could be me; in this case it was another Senator--and fights for the status quo for one particular industry and the newspapers write a story that that individual got more money from that industry than anyone else; even if the motives were as pure as the driven snow--and I have no reason to believe otherwise--people lose faith. They do not want to believe us if we stand up and fight for an industry and we are the biggest recipient of the industry's funds. We are not talking about a thousand bucks; we are talking about big bucks. The appearance of corruption, if I may use the word, is out there. I don't care what Senator, on either side of the aisle, stands up and stamps his or her foot and says: That's a terrible word. Don't use it; the appearance of corruption is out there. Maybe you don't think so, but ordinary people think so. We know it. It is another reason they are turned off. It is another reason they do not vote. And the third reason: The system is stealing precious time from elected officials. Look, let's be honest. A person who comes from California, who takes the oath of office, would have to raise $10,000 a day, 7 days a week, for 6 years, in order to have the resources to run for reelection. Let me repeat that--for 6 years, $10,000 a day, 7 days a week, in order to have the assets that are needed to run for reelection in California, where there are 33 million people and the highest TV rates in the country. How do you think that happens? Do you think that individual in the Senate can possibly do all that and still do the best job that she can do? It is impossible. Let me make a confession on the floor of the Senate. Having run for the Senate twice from that great State, I did every single thing I could to raise as much money as I could within the law. I don't want anyone to think I am holier than thou because I am not. If I was, I would have said: I'm not going to take the PAC money. I'm not going to ask people for soft money. I'm going to demand they take the issues ads off when they help me. I am not holier than thou. I am a user of the system, and the system is wrong. I think the Senators from California who know what it is like to do this in some ways have more credibility than Senators from small States to talk about the evils of this system. The system is broken, and we have to clean up our act. It is very simple. I am willing to do it in a baby step, which is what I consider this stripped-down bill to be, or I am willing to do a much larger step, which I think Shays-Meehan is in the House. I like it better. I will do what it takes to get something out of this Senate that speaks to reform. Soft money, unlimited dollars, it does not matter what it is. It could be any amount going to the parties. Did it help me? Oh, yes. It helped me a lot. In some ways, I was in a better position than my opponent. He spent a fortune. I was able to raise more. Why am I standing here? I know how to work the system. I have been at it a long time. It is in my benefit to keep it the way it is. Even a well-heeled opponent that I had and I faced, with all the support of the Republican Party, could not go toe to toe with me because I know how to work the system. But the system is broken, and we have to clean up our act. We have a chance to do it. I hope people in this Senate who know this system inside out will do what they can to change it. Doing away with soft money is a step in the right direction. Do we need other steps? You bet we do. We need to expand disclosure requirements, and I am going to read Senator McCain's amendment with great interest. It seems to me we can do that in this bill because many times the special interests will wait until the last minute to dump big money into their candidate's campaign, hoping it will not be found out until after election day. With the computers the way we have them today, we ought to be able to know it pretty much on a real-time basis. We need to ensure that these issue ads become a thing of the past. What a phony deal that is. That is as much an ad as the ad I put on for myself. How is this for an issue ad? ``Senator X has just cast a vote against a particular bill. It is a disaster for our country. Call Senator X and tell her she is wrong.'' That is an issue ad? No. That is a personal attack. ``Senator Y has supported a bill that is going to hurt our country's economy. Call Senator Y. Here are the three reasons he is wrong on that,'' and you mention the Senator's name over and over. By the way, you can even show the Senator's face. That is not an issue ad. That is a direct attack ad. Was it done against my opponent? Yes, it was. Was it done against me? Yes, it was. It is uncontrolled. It brings in other issues that the two candidates themselves do not even want to talk about. It unbalances the whole debate in the campaign. It has to be a thing of the past. ``Free speech,'' my colleagues say on the other side. I will tell you, I never heard anyone more eloquent on the point than the Senator from Kentucky. The Supreme Court was divided 5 to 4 on the issue of free speech. I tell you, they are wrong because when you say money equals speech, you are demeaning the Constitution; you are demeaning this democracy. How is it free speech if candidate A is a billionaire and can buy up every inch of time on the TV and the radio and the other candidate, candidate Y, is a poor candidate and has to go raise money? By the time he gets the money, he goes to the TV stations and the radio stations, and they say: Oh, sorry, candidate Y. There is no time left for you to buy. That is an infringement on his speech. I had an interesting situation at the end of my last campaign. A lot of money came in toward the end of my campaign. I sent it over to the TV stations. I just got it back with a big refund. By the time we got it over there, there was no more time. So how do you say that money equals speech if one candidate has it; the other one has a harder time getting it, and they cannot get the prime time? This speech argument is a debasement of everything that I believe in. I believe that our Founders would roll over in their graves if they knew that when they fought and died for free speech, it now means money, and you cannot tell a wealthy candidate you can only put X into your campaign, because it is a violation of free speech. But what about the poor candidate? He does not have the money. What about his speech? So this argument on speech, to me, is nonsensical. I am one of these people who believe the Supreme Court ought to take another look at that Buckley v. Valeo because I think it is off the wall. So here I am standing in front of my colleagues admitting that I have used this system to the ultimate, that I have benefited from it because I understand it, that I am good at it. I have had, in the course of my campaigns, thousands and thousands and thousands of contributors. There is not a day that goes by that I do not thank them for their support because I would not be here; I could not have gotten my message out. But they understand, in their heart of hearts, and one of the reasons they wanted me to be here, I will stand up and fight against this system. So I am doing it again in the hopes that maybe this time, with this stripped-down bill, we can pick up enough votes from the other side of the aisle to ensure that we will have some reform. I beg my colleagues--we have had some bitter debates, very partisan debates, and it has not been a pretty thing to watch--maybe we can make this a pretty thing to watch. So far it has been kind of contentious. In the end, if we can get the 60 bipartisan votes to shut off debate, maybe we will get a bill, maybe we can be proud of something we did in this Congress. They did it in the House. I urge my colleagues, let us follow the lead of Senators McCain and Feingold. Let us reach across the aisle, do something right for the people, restore their faith in this system. Maybe they will start voting again and feel good about who we are and, frankly, about this country, if they think we are moving toward a truer democracy. We have a chance to do it. I hope we will. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER. They can't see the beard on the phone, though.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, our men and women in the armed forces do a great job. From Kosovo to Korea, they prove that they are the best fighting force in the world. They deserve the pay raise and other important benefits that they have earned. However, I cannot support the irresponsible spending that is included in this legislation and it is with regret that I must vote against it. Exhibit 1 Sidestepping Bosses, Four Star General Lobbied for Jetliner (By John Donnelly) The U.S. commander in the Middle East recently went over the heads of his Pentagon bosses by persuading a key lawmaker to buy the military a $63 million jetliner which the Pentagon not only didn't request but explicitly opposed, Defense Week has learned. On several occasions over the last year, Marine Corps Gen. Anthony Zinni told Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) how U.S. Central Command needs a new, bigger aircraft to replace the aging EC- 135 that now ferries Zinni and his staff between their Tampa, Fla., headquarters and places such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, according to Murtha's spokesman and several congressional aides. As a result, Murtha--the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee's defense panel and, like Zinni, a Marine--made sure money for a new Boeing 737-300 ER was inserted in the fiscal 2000 funding bill the House passed last July, Murtha's spokesman, Brad Clemenson, confirmed. A four-star's advocacy of his command's needs, and a congressman's generosity, may not be scandalous. In fact, Zinni will have retired before the new plane arrives; and the aircraft arguably may be needed. But the incident illustrates one way the Pentagon's budget bloats: a general personally lobbying for money--in this case one of the biggest boosts to this year's Air Force procurement request--to buy a jet his employers had already said costs too much. No 737 for any commander was in the Senate-passed appropriations bill or either the House- or Senate-passed authorization bills. This month, a House-Senate conference is scheduled to reconcile the two appropriations measures and decide whether to buy the 737. Zinni's spokesman said the general did not ask for the 737, but only recounted his requirements in response to congressional queries. But that picture of a passive Zinni contrasts with those painted by numerous House officials, including Clemenson, Murtha's spokesman. ``Zinni did ask for the help, and Mr. Murtha was supportive of the request . . .,'' Clemenson said. ``I don't know if he asked specifically for [a 737-300 ER], but he asked for help.'' In the form of a bigger support aircraft? ``Yes.'' By sharp contrast, last March, Deputy Secretary of Defense John Hamre and Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Air Force Gen. Joseph Ralston, in a study for Congress, said a Gulfstream V executive jet, not a 737, is ``the single aircraft most capable of performing the CINC [Commander in Chief of unified combatant commands] support role at significantly reduced costs. . . .'' The Joint Staff study conceded that Boeing 737-300 ERs alone meet all the commanders' payload requirements, as the chiefs themselves state them. But the report advocated the Gulfstream V, designated C-37A, because the 737s cost twice as much. ``However,'' the study said, ``on a one-for-one basis, the estimated 20-year total ownership cost . . . for the 737-300 ER is about double that of the C-37A.'' If a commander needs a bigger airplane, the Joint Staff said, then one can be provided from ``other DoD resources.'' What's more, the Pentagon's Hamre told Defense Week last May how, in internal budget battles, he had fought hard to overcome the regional commanders' desire for jets larger than Gulfstreams to replace their aging fleet of nine aircraft, mostly Boeing 707s. Hamre said he had to convince the 10 generals and admirals (including the boss of the U.N. command in Korea) that the Gulfstream Vs were adequate. ``The CINCs aren't happy they have to live with a 12- passenger aircraft,'' Hamre said of the Gulfstream Vs. Most of the 707s the CINCs now fly seat 45. By comparison, the 737-300 can fit up to 128 passengers, depending on the configuration. ``I'll be honest,'' Hamre said. ``It was hard pulling this off. We said [of the Gulfstream, or G-V]: `That's good enough: It can get you to the theater, it can get you back and you'll be in constant communication with your battle staff.' So we sent up a report this spring saying the right answer is a G-V.'' Having lost the battle inside the Pentagon, Zinni appears to have sought to win it on Murtha's House panel. If Zinni made a similar case to the other three defense committees, he wasn't successful. If other commanders waged a similar campaign on Capitol Hill, no word of it has emerged. response to query Lt. Cdr. Ernest Duplessis, a spokesman for the U.S. Central Command chief, or CINCCENT, said: ``Gen. Zinni never made a request for a 737 or any specific aircraft. Nor did he ask to have his own individually assigned aircraft. Rather, he provided his requirements when asked. . . . ``Gen Zinni has said he would accept the Gulfstream V with noted reservations about the suitability of the plane to the CINCCENT mission,'' Duplessis said. ``His shortfalls were identified in response to questions from the House Appropriations Committee.'' Duplessis declined to name any lawmakers involved. However, several congressional aides said that, if Murtha asked Zinni questions, they were likely to have originated as broad queries about overall needs, not questions about CINC- support aircraft. They said Murtha almost certainly didn't ask Zinni out of the blue if Zinni would like a new airplane. According to Clemenson, last Christmas Eve Murtha and Zinni discussed U.S. Central Command's purported need for a larger support aircraft with Secretary of Defense William Cohen during a flight home from Saudi Arabia. In addition, aides said Zinni and Murtha also talked about it last February during a ``courtesy call'' Zinni paid to Murtha's office just prior to the general's annual testimony before the House defense-spending panel. ``It's something that's been talked about in a number of contexts for a number of years here,'' Clemenson said. Regardless of how the subject first came up, Zinni's portrait of the shortfalls of the Gulfstream Vs and the advantages of a larger aircraft ran counter to the Pentagon's hard-fought policy favoring Gulfstream Vs for the commanders, whatever their personal misgivings. not a stated priority The Joint Staff recommendation in favor of Gulfstreams came after the fiscal 2000 budget request went to Congress in February. The request contained no Gulfstreams, let alone 737s. Nor were Gulfstreams or 737s included on any of this year's lists of ``unfunded requirements,'' sometimes called wish lists--programs not in the budget request but ones that the service chiefs consider important. Both the budget request and the wish lists are supposed to include the top requirements of chiefs such as Zinni, though some say the lists don't always include all key needs. Nonetheless, Zinni and Murtha believe the U.S. Central Command chief, based at MacDill AFB, Fla., has a unique requirement for a large aircraft to replace the current EC-135, which is a 1962 airplane. The CINCENT must travel 8,000 miles to his conflict-ridden theater and must have the communications gear, staff and combat equipment to be able to perform a ``full contingency operation,'' Duplessis said. To avoid delays, the aircraft must be able to make it that distance without landing to refuel. The Senate-passed defense-appropriations bill, though it did not fund Gulfstreams or 737s, did give the Air Force legislative authority to lease, not buy, support aircraft, which the Air Force has said means six Gulfstreams. However, even the plan to lease the smaller, cheaper Gulfstreams triggered a controversy on Capitol Hill. Several lawmakers have criticized the purchase or lease of luxury jets for four-stars while, at the same time, many in uniform subsist on food stamps, aircraft are short on spare parts and other needs go unmet. In addition, some in Congress point out that the military already has hundreds of domestic ``operational support aircraft,'' which the General Accounting Office in 1995 said exceed actual needs. In addition to the CINC fleet, the Air Force alone has 11 Gulfstreams, three 727-100s, two 747s, four 757s and 70 Learjets. The other services have their own, smaller fleets. The GAO said the services do not share these assets effectively. Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) believes some of these stateside aircraft, if not needed domestically, should be provided to the CINCs. If a plane's range is not sufficient for intercontinental flight, he says, it should be sold to corporate executives to finance the purchase of any new, larger jets for the four-stars. Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee's defense panel, told Defense Week recently that the need for the existing fleet must be demonstrated before Congress signs up for new aircraft, whether Gulfstreams or 737s. ``Before buying these jets, Congress needs to get a lot more information as to the military's requirements for executive aircraft,'' he said.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I oppose the large increase in defense spending called for under the fiscal year 2000 Department of Defense Appropriations bill. The final conference report increases defense spending by $17.3 billion over last year's bill--$7.2 billion of which is declared as emergency spending and will come straight out of the surplus. At a time when Congress is slashing many important domestic programs, I cannot support an increase of this magnitude. I do, however, want to express my strong support for the many good provisions that were included in this legislation. This bill includes funding for a needed pay raise of 4.8 percent for our military men and women and targeted bonuses to enhance recruitment and retention efforts. I was also pleased to see that the bill restores full retirement benefits for our personnel. Nevertheless, I think it would have been possible to include these important provisions without substantially increasing the defense budget. The Department of Defense need only to look within to find these savings. In January, the General Accounting Office found that auditors could not match about $22 billion in signed checks with corresponding obligations; $9 billion in known military materials and supplies were unaccounted for; and contractors received $19 million in overpayments. In April, a GAO study found that the Navy does not effectively control its in-transit inventory and has placed enormous amounts of inventory at risk of undetected theft or misplacement. For fiscal years 1996-98, the Navy reported that it had lost over $3 billion in in-transit inventory, including some classified and sensitive items such as aircraft guided missile launchers, night-vision devices, and communications equipment. This bill also includes many unneeded items. In an effort to provide some fiscal responsibility to the defense budget, I offered an amendment to this bill that would have denied the Air Force the ability to lease six leather-seated Gulfstream executive jets for the regional commanders in chief (CINCs). Even though the military has hundreds of operational support aircraft, the main argument against my amendment was that leasing the Gulfstream jets would be cheaper than purchasing the jet favored by the CINC's--the more expensive Boeing 737s. However, the final conference report not only includes the authority to lease Gulfstream jets, it also includes a $63 million Boeing 737 for the CINC of the Central Command. A recent article in Defense Week provides the details on how this unrequested jet was added to the bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, as a Member of the Foreign Relations Committee I sat through the day of hearings. And even in that short time--and I know you and I were there together--I was thoroughly convinced that our country will be more secure if we sign on and we ratify this treaty than if we do not. I think we have a very stark choice. We can continue to lead the world in stopping the spread of nuclear weapons by supporting this treaty or we can start a nuclear chain reaction by opposing it. I pray that we will support this treaty. As I said in the committee, when I was a child in grammar school--and I think a lot of you might remember this--America faced a real threat of nuclear war. In my public school we had emergency drills. We were taught that if we hid underneath our desks and we covered our eyes and we turned away from the windows, we would survive a nuclear strike. We were taught that the wood from our desks would save us from the massive destruction caused by a nuclear weapon. We also were made to wear dog tags around our necks. We were so proud of that. We thought we were being just like the people in the Army. We didn't realize the true purpose of the dog tag was so that someone could identify our body after a nuclear strike. The kids in my generation really didn't know that much. But the kids in later generations certainly did. When I was in the House, Congressman George Miller set up a Select Committee on Children, Youth, and Families. One of our first hearings was on the impact of the nuclear disaster that was looming ahead of our children. So we had testimony from children that they feared for their lives. I do not want to go back to those days when the children of the 1980s feared a nuclear strike, or my days, when we feared a nuclear strike. I have heard the concerns raised about the treaty. And, as I see it, the two main arguments against the treaty are verifiability and the condition of our stockpile stewardship program. So like most Members of the Senate, I look at what the experts say on these two issues. Last week, the Secretary of Defense testified on the verification issue. He said, ``I am confident that the United States will be able to detect a level of testing and the yield and the number of tests by which a state could undermine our U.S. nuclear deterrent.'' The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Henry Shelton testified, ``The CTBT will help limit the development of more advanced and destructive weapons and inhibit the ability of more countries to acquire nuclear weapons. In short, the world would be a safer place with the treaty than without it, and it is in our national security interests to ratify the CTBT treaty.'' In fact, four former Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs who served under the Carter, Reagan, Bush, and Clinton administrations have come out in favor of the treaty. On the condition of our nuclear stockpile, I turned to the directors of our three national laboratories. They all support ratification of the CTBT saying ``we are confident that the Stockpile Stewardship program will enable us to maintain America's nuclear deterrent without nuclear testing.'' I've also received a letter from 32 physics Nobel Laureates in support of the CTBT. In discussing the stockpile issue, they write, Fully informed technical studies have concluded that continued nuclear testing is not required to retain confidence in the safety, reliability and performance of nuclear weapons in the United States' stockpile, provided science and technology programs necessary for stockpile stewardship are maintained. Let me also point out that the Senate has passed an amendment to the resolution of ratification stating that if ``the President determines that nuclear testing is necessary to assure, with a high degree of confidence, the safety and reliability of the United States nuclear weapons stockpile, the President shall consult promptly with the Senate and withdraw from the Treaty . . . in order to conduct whatever testing might be required.'' If our stockpile is not safe and reliable, the President will withdraw from the treaty. There doesn't have to be a Senate vote. It's not going to get bogged down in rules of the Senate. If there is a supreme national interest in withdrawing from the treaty, we will withdraw. I also think it is important to look at the risks of not going forward with this treaty. How can the United States tell Pakistan, India, and China not to test their nuclear weapons if we don't ratify this treaty? How can we go to our friends and say, don't give Iran the technology to produce weapons of mass destruction? I fear that our failure to ratify this treaty will set off a nuclear ``chain reaction'' throughout the world that the United States will long regret. An editorial in the San Francisco Chronicle puts it best in saying ``A global treaty that invites every country to step forward or face condemnation is the only way to corral nuclear danger. If the world feels hostile and uncertain now, wait five years without the ban.'' We can turn it around today if we vote for this treaty. I think there are many protections in it which allow the President, any President, to say: We should go back to testing. I yield the floor. (Disturbance in the Visitors' Galleries)

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, on the occasion of his retirement as executive director of the Los Angeles World Airports, LAWA, I would like to recognize the important contribution Jack Driscoll has made to the City of Los Angeles and to the economy of Southern California over the past seven years. Jack Driscoll was appointed executive director in December of 1992. His record of accomplishment can best be shown in the outstanding quality of management and development at the city's four airports: Los Angeles International, LAX, Ontario International, Palmdale Regional, and Van Nuys. Under Mr. Driscoll's financial management, LAWA has increased its operating income by an overwhelming 329 percent through the combination of reorganization, streamlining measures, and renegotiating contracts with airport tenants. Revenues from non-aviation sources, including updated concessions and new vendor contracts, have nearly equaled revenues from aviation sources. In fact, leading investment rating agencies have rewarded LAX with their highest ratings for a stand-alone airport. Even in adversity, Mr. Driscoll worked to maintain quality in service and operations. He was at the reins of LAWA during a major dispute between the City of Los Angeles and the airlines over landing fees. During litigation at LAX, he revived the dormant, 12-year-old plans to build new terminals at Ontario International Airport. With Mr. Driscoll's direction, this $270-million project was completed four months ahead of schedule and $26 million under budget. These new terminals put ONT in position to bring regional solutions to meet Southern California's ever-growing air transport needs and made it the only airport in the region with new facilities to do so. In addition, Mr. Driscoll initiated the LAX Master Plan, a long-term process to guide development of LAX to meet air passenger and cargo demands for the next 20 years. Since 1992, LAX has become the third busiest passenger airport in the world and the second busiest air cargo airport in the world. To offset this growth, Mr. Driscoll committed LAWA to undertake major noise reduction and management programs, including nearly $500 million in programs for residential soundproofing and compatible land-use; recycle water programs; and a variety of clean air programs, including alternative-fuel vehicles and traffic mitigation. All of these programs have received awards from environmental organizations and regulatory agencies for outstanding achievement. I wish Jack Driscoll well and thank him for his contribution towards improving Southern California's aviation gateway.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. What is the agreement because Senator Leahy's staff is surprised his time has run out. Can the Chair tell me how much time remains?

Mrs. BOXER. Can the Senator from Utah make that 7 minutes since we accommodated the Senator from Missouri? If I may have 7 minutes, I can conclude.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I know my colleague from Missouri is going to speak, as will others. But I did want to follow the great Senator from Vermont, Mr. Pat Leahy, who has done such an admirable job as the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee in fighting for fairness. If you listen to his remarks carefully, what he is basically saying is: Bring to the floor of the Senate the nominees who have been voted out of the committee; let's debate them; let's talk about them; let's talk about their merits. If you have a problem with them, put it out there. But let's vote. That is the least we can do for these good people. Every single one of these people who have gone through the committee, has a current job. When they were nominated, and especially when they were voted out of the committee, they assumed they would be going to a new job, to be a judge. They had every reason to assume that because a good vote out of that committee--getting the support of Senator Hatch and usually one or two or three more on the Republican side, and all the Democrats--means you had the votes to get to the floor of the Senate. As my friend has pointed out, it is very sad. We have had some bad situations develop. I was very hopeful, in this new round of approvals we have gone through--and I am grateful for the fact we have moved a few judges through--I was hopeful we would break the logjam with Judge Richard Paez and with Marsha Berzon, for several reasons. One, they are terrific people. They would make great judges. They were voted out of the committee several times. They deserve a vote. They have loving family members. I have had the wonderful opportunity to meet their families: In the case of Richard Paez, his wife and children; in the case of Marsha, her husband and children. They are waiting for something to happen. This is not fair. So while I am glad we are moving some court nominees--I am pleased we are doing that--I think we need to do more in the interests of the country. We need to do more. In the interests of fairness to these people, we need to do more. Let me go into a few details about Richard Paez. Currently, he serves on the Federal bench as a district court judge in the Central District of California. He was first nominated by President Clinton to the court of appeals on January 25, 1996. Seven months later, on July 31, 1996, the Judiciary Committee finally held a hearing on Judge Paez' nomination. Let me point out something. This is the same Judge Paez who came right through this Senate when we supported him for district court. So he is not a stranger to the Judiciary Committee. He is not a stranger to the Senate. We already approved him when he was nominated and took his seat on the district court. So here we have a situation where it took him 7 months to get his first hearing and then the Senate adjourned for the year without having reported the nomination. That was 1996. Now we get to 1997. The President nominates Judge Paez for the second time. On February 25, the Judiciary Committee held a second hearing on the nomination. That was 1997. On March 19, 1998, 1 year and 2 months later, Judge Paez' nomination was finally reported by the Judiciary Committee to the full Senate. But in the 7 months following, the Senate failed to act on the nomination, and it adjourned with that nomination still on the Executive Calendar. Again, this year, for the third time, the President nominates Richard Paez to the Ninth Circuit Court. May I say, there are several vacancies on that court, more than half a dozen. So we are looking at a court that is not running at full speed. When there are 28 members is when they are completely full. Now they have all these vacancies. So the nomination is reported favorably by the Judiciary Committee on July 29 of this year, but again the full Senate has failed to act. So it brings us to this day, where we have a little bit of a breakthrough. We are going to move forward five judges. I am glad we are doing it. But we have to be fair and look at this terrific judge, Judge Richard Paez. I think we have an obligation to him and his family, and frankly, to the President, who is the President who has nominated this gentleman several times. Sure, if the shoe was on the other foot and we had a Republican President, I do believe my colleagues would be saying: Give us an up- or-down vote. I do not think that Richard Paez, the wonderful human being that he is, deserves to be strung out by the Senate--3\1/2\ years strung out. I cannot understand why. I looked back through the record, and there is no one else who has been treated like this. I say to my Republican friends, we do not know who has put a hold----