[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 24 (Tuesday, February 27, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1341-S1343]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          THE PEOPLE'S MESSAGE

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, being back in my home State of California 
is always a marvelous reality check for me. What an honor it is to 
represent the largest State in the Union, the most diversified State in 
the Union. We have in that State a tremendous farm community. We have 
in that State the Silicon Valley. We have more students, we have more 
seniors, we have more families, we have more working women. We have 
more of everything--the pluses and the minuses of America: the wealthy, 
the middle, the poor; the beautiful ocean, the need to preserve that 
resource, tourism.
  Mr. President, what a reality check I got. I went home, I went to 
schools, from the little kindergarten to graduate schools, to the 
hospitals, to the chambers of commerce, downtown to the cities, to the 
suburbs, to meeting with community groups of all kinds, every race, 
color, and creed, to our beautiful Pacific Ocean, to our facilities in 
need of earthquake repair, to our farmlands, to our courts, to our 
young, to our old, to those in between. That is why it is so good to go 
home and stay in touch.
  I hear one message from everyone. This cuts across party lines, it 
cuts across all lines. That is, ``Congress, get on with your work. Take 
care of this country. Do not play any more games with Government 
shutdown. Stop being radical. Be reasonable. Meet each other halfway, 
move forward, do not play games with defaulting. Get on with your 
work.''
  It was an amen chorus for me. I agree with that. I told my California 
citizens, regardless of whether they are Democrats, Republicans, or 
independents, fighting the battles of the past is not what we ought to 
be doing. That is what we are doing around here; either fighting the 
battles of the past--and I will explain what I mean--or we are battling 
over Whitewater, when people want us to take care of business.
  What do I mean when I say we tend to battle over past arguments? It 
was during the 1950's that a Republican President named Dwight David 
Eisenhower said there was an important role for the Federal Government 
to play in education. He wrote the National Defense Education Act. What 
it said is that we better make sure that our students are prepared in 
science, in research. At that time, the Soviet Union was getting ahead, 
pulling ahead in these arenas. This Republican President said to the 
Congress that there is a role for the Federal Government to play. It is 
important for our defense that we have an educated work force, that our 
young people are skilled.
  So we decided in the 1950's that there is, in fact, a place for the 
Federal Government in education. Does that mean controlling what goes 
on in the classroom? Of course not. What it means is coming in as a 
partner where there is a critical need. An example of this today 
certainly would be continuing Head Start, the title I program, and 
putting more computers in the schools. These are some areas.
  In the 1950's, this role was determined. What is happening now, we 
have radical elements in the Congress who want to do away with the 
Department of Education. We would be the only leading power not to have 
a Department of Education, a place in a national government where this 
is the focus.
  We have people in this body who believe in cutting aid to education, 
and, in fact, in the last continuing resolution that we passed, if you 
annualized those cuts, they would be $3 billion plus. I have to say, as 
I went around to the schools, they are very upset about this, from the 
young ones to those in universities. There we are, fighting the battles 
of the 1950's on education.
  Then what happened in the 1960's? In the 1960's, we decided as a 
nation to start Medicare. It was very controversial at first. The 
doctors opposed it and said it would be socialized medicine. What is 
Medicare? It is insurance for our elderly. It took our elderly and gave 
them health insurance. Now our system is the envy of the world as it 
relates to seniors--99 percent of our seniors have health insurance. 
Why are we opening up that battle now in the 1990's? You cannot take 
$270 billion out of Medicare and expect it to survive. You cannot get a 
way out for people to say, ``I don't need it. I will set up a medical 
savings account, drop out of Medicare,'' and the wealthiest and 
healthiest will be gone and the system will go under. But we are 
battling the fight over Medicare.
  In the 1970's, under a Republican President, Richard Nixon, we set up 
the Environmental Protection Agency because the country believed it was 
important to stand up and protect our heritage. The Environmental 
Protection Agency--this crowd running this Congress wants to cut 
enforcement by over a third; some even two-thirds. So we are now 
battling the fight over 

[[Page S1342]]
whether or not there should be a national role in environmental 
protection.
  Now, in the 1980's, we had a big debate over nursing home standards. 
There were stories that came into the Congress--and I was on the House 
side--horror stories of abuse of senior citizens; frail elderly 
tragically being abused in nursing homes, whether it was scalded in hot 
tubs or sexually abused and mistreated. We decided to set up national 
nursing home standards, and finally those are being implemented. This 
crowd in this Congress does not think there ought to be Federal nursing 
home standards.
  In the 1990's, we all came together behind the concept of community 
policing, that crime was a problem, and we thought it was a good idea--
and criminologists joined us, and police joined us--to put the police 
in the neighborhoods, in the communities, let them be a role model for 
the kids and reflect the communities. Crime will go down. We are 
beginning to see it work. There is a move to repeal the crime bill that 
has the money for community policing, that banned assault weapons.
  What I have done, just looking back to my lifetime that I can 
remember, is go through the 1950's, 1960's, 1970's, 1980's, 1990's, 
show you education, Medicare, the environment, community policing, the 
EPA, and show you how this Republican Congress is bogged down in the 
battles of the past. We do not have to refight these battles, my 
friends. What we need to do is meet each other halfway when we disagree 
on budget issues and move forward.
  Now, here is another area that is being brought up for a new battle. 
It is a painful issue. It is a difficult issue. And it is yet another 
that is dragging us back to the future and stopping us from getting 
ready for the next century--that my people in California want us to get 
ready for.
  In 1973 the Supreme Court decided Roe versus Wade. It basically said 
a woman has a right to choose, it falls into the privacy provisions of 
the Constitution, and in the beginning of her pregnancy it is her right 
and her choice. Roe versus Wade goes on to say that later on in the 
pregnancy the State has an interest and can legislate. Why are we 
reopening that issue? Day in and day out, it is holding up bills on 
this floor. Why not let Roe versus Wade be the law of the land and move 
on? We are never going to agree on every detail. But get the Government 
out of this and let the American people, in the privacy of their own 
homes and their own communities and their own churches and their own 
families, decide this difficult issue. But, no, we bring it up here, 
day after day, and it stops us from moving forward what we really need 
to do here, which is to agree on how to balance this budget, how to do 
it in a fair way, and get ready for the next century.
  Now we have a major Presidential candidate vowing to make abortion 
illegal--illegal--in cases of rape. In the 1980's, I wrote an amendment 
on the House side that passed. It was a close vote. It was the Boxer 
amendment, and it said that States in fact would pay for abortions of 
women in poverty who were the victims of rape or incest. I mean, if we 
cannot agree on anything else, can we not agree as human beings, men 
and women together, reasonable people with a conscience, that we should 
not force a woman to bear the child of a rapist? How radical are we 
going to get?
  I remember the Willie Horton ads that were used against a Democratic 
candidate for President. Are these candidates saying force a woman to 
have that rapist's child? Is that where we are heading? And why are we 
bringing this up, day after day? It is even an issue on the D.C. bill 
that we just refused to end debate on. That is one of the reasons. We 
have work to do. Why are we reopening these tough battles of the past 
when we should, in fact, move on and do our work? We can have the most 
successful America ever because we are the greatest country in the 
world. We have the most productive workers in the world. If we can stop 
these battles of the past.
  I also think, if we could hold off on tax cuts to the wealthiest 
among us, the fight over balancing the budget would be easy. We would 
have much less to disagree about. Why can we not agree that people who 
earn over $200,000, who do fine, thank you very much, can wait until 
the budget is actually in balance and then we will look at tax cuts for 
the very wealthiest? You hear so much today about the average worker 
falling behind, and this crowd wants to give huge tax breaks to the 
richest. They cannot even wait until the budget is balanced. Set that 
aside. Then let us take our spending issues, meet each other halfway, 
and move on.
  Let us address the issues of worker insecurity. President Clinton and 
Secretary Robert Reich have been speaking about worker insecurity for 
years. I remember the President telling workers in California, several 
years ago, that many of them will have as many as seven or eight jobs 
in a lifetime, and why it is so crucial for them to have the very best 
education, so they would get the very best jobs and have a chance at 
the very best worker retraining and be able to get health insurance 
that is portable, meaning they can take it with them from job to job, 
and make sure the companies cannot raid their pensions, that they can 
have portable pensions as well.

  Senator Kennedy has talked about solid financial incentives to those 
who keep good jobs in this Nation. In other words, companies that keep 
the jobs here, give them incentives. We should move on that now. 
President Clinton has said let us give a break to families to help them 
educate their children. We have the ability. Senator Dole has recently, 
on the campaign trail, talked about the average worker falling behind. 
We have the elements of being able to put together a package here that 
can make life better for our people if we stop battling the battles of 
the past, wasting our time on a political witch hunt in Whitewater, and 
get on with our work. We have trade agreements that need to be 
enforced. Exports are crucial. And, as President Clinton once told me, 
America needs new customers. That is what we need. But we have to be 
very strong. We have to stand up to whatever nation would put barriers 
in the way of our exports.
  We are the most creative in the workplace, from farm exports to 
semiconductors to entertainment to pharmaceuticals--even cars. We are 
beginning to see our car exports go up. All of our exports are growing. 
To put a barrier around our country would be the wrong thing to do. It 
is acting like a frightened person. We have nothing to be afraid of 
with our country sporting the best and most productive work force in 
the world and all the business that we need to really move out.
  I agree with our President that in between unfettered free trade and 
isolationism there is fair trade, which our country must aggressively 
pursue. I am the ranking member on a committee that Senator Bond chairs 
on international finance. We know how important it is, how crucial it 
is that we stand behind our trade agreements. We have problems going on 
in China, where they are pirating our CD's and our laser discs. This is 
a problem. The way to resolve it is to enforce that agreement. Enforce 
that agreement, not decide we are going to give up on exporting to 
China where, by the way, the Chinese buy 5 billion movie tickets a year 
compared to 1.2 billion a year in America.
  So we have much to do. I get very excited about coming back to work 
when I have come back from my State because the people are telling me 
what they need from us and I know we can do it. I am so disappointed we 
are now moving into this Whitewater matter instead of some things we 
ought to have on our plate. We ought to agree, close down that 
Whitewater investigation. Give it a reasonable amount of time, take it 
out of the realm of politics, and let the special counsel do his work. 
There is no limit on him. He can go on as long as he wants. He has 100 
agents on the case and 30 lawyers. The fact of the matter is we are 
just duplicating the work of the special counsel because somebody over 
there thinks they are going to bring the President down with something 
embarrassing or hurt the First Lady.
  The country is disgusted with it. I am not saying everybody, but I 
think the vast majority of people when asked say it has turned into a 
political witch hunt. We should be better than that. We have so much to 
do. We have to get computers into the classrooms and into the homes of 
America. I am working on a bill, a bipartisan effort to get that done. 

[[Page S1343]]

  We should increase the minimum wage that is at a 40-year low, if we 
want to do something to help working people stop falling behind. And 
people who think it is just teenagers who hold those jobs, I want to 
correct the record. People support their families on the minimum wage. 
That is the fact. And they cannot live at this minimum wage.
  Yesterday, it may have been the day before, in California, 
construction workers rallied in the streets of Los Angeles by the 
thousands. Our Governor in California has decided to refigure the way 
construction workers are paid. They are supposed to be paid prevailing 
wages on State contracts. That means the average of the wages in the 
area. He wishes to mess with that formula, if you will. He has directed 
a committee to change that formula so that construction workers get 20 
percent less pay.
  Is that what we ought to be doing at a time when we are all growing 
to the realization that workers are stagnating? We should be supporting 
prevailing wage laws. One of the reasons many of us voted against this 
D.C. bill is not only because it attacks a woman's right to choose, but 
it would in fact walk away from prevailing wages, and it would say to 
the city of the District of Columbia forget it; just pay whatever the 
going will bear. And that will thrust people into poverty.
  Let us reach across party lines and work for the American people. 
They deserve it, and they expect it from us. So I think instead of us 
coming together on the next thing on our agenda, fighting over 
Whitewater, we should be sitting here debating how we can make sure 
that as we go into the next century we have the most educated kids, the 
strongest families, the lowest amount of crime that we can bring to our 
communities, the best environmental protection, and cleaning up 
Superfund sites.
  I visited a site, Mr. President, San Bernardino, CA, that got caught 
in this continuing resolution because the funds were frozen. If we do 
not move soon on that Superfund site, the drinking water of 600,000 San 
Bernardino residents is going to be poisoned. It is called the Newmark 
Superfund site.
  We should stop playing games here. Now, I heard that there is some 
progress, that in fact the appropriations committee leaders on both 
sides of the aisle got together and they are working to resolve these 
matters. But my message today is let us reach across those party lines 
and get our work done. The people who drink out of the water in San 
Bernardino, they are of every political party. This is not about 
politics. This is about doing our job.
  So we need to pass a balanced budget, to meet each other halfway and 
get it done. Put off the tax cut to the wealthiest, and we can get it 
done.
  We need a clean debt ceiling so we make sure that the greatest 
country in the world does not default on its debt.
  We need a trade strategy, an economic strategy to lift our people up. 
We are hearing now across party lines that this is something we should 
be doing. Let us not let this moment pass. We can do it. You and I have 
worked on some things in the farm bill where we crossed over our 
divisions on a number of issues, joining together. What we did is going 
to make life better for family farmers. I think we can do that.
  Transportation and infrastructure is required to move goods through 
our Nation. I went down to the San Diego border. There is tremendous 
trade as a result of NAFTA. Now, I was not a NAFTA fan, and I have a 
lot of problems with NAFTA. But I vowed, even though I did not support 
it because of the wage disparity and environmental problems and labor 
standards I did not like, that I was going to make it work. We know 
there are ways to make it work. We need an infrastructure bill so that 
we can stand behind trade and make it work, because to get the goods 
into our country or shipping them out, they have to be able to move.
  A lot of our local governments want loan guarantees from us. They 
will raise the money. Loan guarantees can make it work without putting 
taxpayers unduly at risk.
  So, in any event, Mr. President, I wanted to use this opportunity to 
kind of give to the Senate and for the Record my state of mind at this 
point as I come back from a very in-depth visit to my home State, to 
give a reality check for all of us.
  To sum it up very succinctly, the people want us to meet each other 
halfway on our differences and move forward, because a lot of people in 
today's economy are not moving forward. They are standing still.
  If we have the will, we can turn it around. I think there is enough 
sentiment in this body across party lines that I have heard from the 
majority leader, the Democratic leader, and others in this body, from 
Senator Kennedy to Senator Jeffords to others, that we can reach out to 
make life better for our people. Instead of taking up these issues that 
divide us, that are political, that everyone knows have political 
motivation, let us start working for the people we represent.
  I thank the Chair very much. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The gallery will refrain from making comment 
on Members' speeches.
  Mr. FRIST addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. FRIST. I ask unanimous consent to speak for what time is 
necessary as if in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Frist and Mr. Harkin pertaining to the 
introduction of S. 1578 are located in today's Record under 
``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thompson). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________