[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 135 (Wednesday, October 25, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Page S10954]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         POLITICS AND ELECTIONS

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, there is so much happening in the world of 
politics and elections, it is almost hard to know what topic to talk 
about. Education is certainly No. 1 on the agenda of the American 
people, and we are now in the final stages, I hope, of agreeing--I am 
hopeful--on an education bill for our country. We have made some good 
progress. I am very glad; it appears President Clinton's budget 
priority for afterschool programs is winning out. I am hoping that is 
the case.
  Many of us have worked long and hard to make the point that 
afterschool care is crucial, that it is the best antidote to high 
crime, juvenile crime that occurs in the afternoons after school. It is 
a no-brainer. We know if kids are kept occupied after school, it keeps 
them out of trouble. We have seen these programs work. We have seen 
that juvenile crime occurs between 3 and 6 p.m. If children are engaged 
in stimulating activity after school, it helps.
  President Clinton and the Democrats have been trying to ensure that 
the 1 million children who are waiting for afterschool programs, in 
fact, get afterschool programs. After reading press reports, I am glad 
to report to my colleagues that this looks as if it is on the way. 
However, we still have a major disagreement on school construction. I 
have seen some of our schools that are falling apart. Again, I hope we 
can reach agreement on this crucial issue.
  The two candidates for President have been arguing over education. 
The good news is that education is the topic of the day. It is 
important, when we realize we have to import people to come into this 
country to take the high-tech jobs, and what a tragedy it is that our 
young people are not trained. So education is key.

  Of course, there is an argument between the two candidates on whether 
or not education should be a national priority, which is Vice President 
Gore's view, or Governor Bush's view that really the National 
Government should not get very involved. This is a key distinction.
  I side with Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican President, who said it is 
crucial to our national defense to have education as a top priority and 
to make sure that our young people are educated in math, science, and 
reading, everything they have to know--even in those days before high 
tech. I think Vice President Gore is correct.
  There is also a flap over some claims that the Texas students were 
doing really well. It turns out that the independent Rand report issued 
just yesterday says, in fact, those Texas students were not tested with 
national tests. If one looks at the national tests, they are just not 
making it. Clearly, this education issue is going to go on.
  I come here as a member of the Foreign Relations Committee to talk 
about another issue, a very important issue, and that is an issue that 
is being debated in the Foreign Relations Committee right now. I am not 
on the particular subcommittees that are holding this hearing, but it 
seems to me the hearing going on about U.S.-Russia policy in 1995 are 
really aimed at trying to take a hit at Vice President Gore.
  It is interesting that Republican officials who are speaking up 2 
weeks before the election never even talked about the agreement that 
came out of those meetings in 1995. They did not talk about them for 5 
years, but 2 weeks before an election they are out there trying to hurt 
the Vice President. This is politics at its very worst.
  Frankly, what we ought to be talking about is foreign policy in the 
years 2000 and 2001 in this century because some of the comments made 
by Governor Bush and his advisers are raising all kinds of alarms 
throughout the world. It is important that they be put on the table. 
These remarks have to do with the U.S. policy in the Balkans. Advisers 
to Governor Bush have followed up on his statements he made in the last 
debate that if he was elected President, he would negotiate for the 
removal of all U.S. peacekeeping troops from the Balkans. As one can 
imagine, this announcement has set off alarms in capitals of our 
European allies who rightly believe that such a policy would weaken and 
divide NATO.
  One of the things that alarmed me about Governor Bush's comments was 
he said our military is really there to fight wars and win wars, not to 
keep the peace; that is our role. That puts our people in a very 
difficult position because if, in fact, we have a situation where 
suddenly our military is no longer involved in peacekeeping but only in 
fighting, then I think our NATO allies will say: OK, you do the 
fighting, we will do the peacekeeping. And it means that our troops 
will be in harm's way and our pilots will be in harm's way. This is a 
great concern to me.

  According to today's New York Times, Lord Robertson, the NATO 
Secretary General, has regularly told visiting American Congressmen 
that the Bush proposal could undermine the whole idea of risk sharing, 
which is precisely the glue that holds our alliance together.
  The Washington Post quotes one European Ambassador saying:

       If the U.S. says it will not perform certain tasks, then 
     the basic consensus of ``all for one and one for all'' begins 
     to unravel. . . . The integrated military command could fall 
     apart and so would [our] alliance.

  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a unanimous 
consent request?
  Mrs. BOXER. I will be happy to yield as long as I do not lose time 
and do not lose my right to the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ENZI. I thank the Senator from California.

                          ____________________