Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am going to be the last speaker. Senator Dorgan will not be using his time, so I am asking that I have 4 minutes of his time, since he has given me that.

Mrs. BOXER. Thank you. That will give me a total of 10 minutes. Mr. President, I think it is a very sad day that the Republicans are not going to allow a vote on this Democratic resolution calling for a changed course in Iraq. And their reason--I sat here and listened--is that we are only doing this because it is an election year. Well, folks, I do not know how to break this to you, but every 2 years is an election year. Are we supposed to stop working in an election year? Are we supposed to stop talking about the issues that are on the minds of the American people because they may be difficult or they may be controversial or they may have consequences for us? Are we supposed to stop doing the people's business in an election year? I do not know about my Republican friends, but I know Californians expect me to work every year--election year or not--every day, every week, every month. And I say to Senator McCain, elections do have consequences. He said elections have consequences. Yes. And all of us were elected, too. Is he forgetting that? Does he think the only election that matters is the election of a President? I think our Founders would be very shocked. Our job is to provide oversight. Our job is to, in fact, advise and consent on many nominations, including the top levels of this administration. So I rise in strong support of this very important amendment Senator Reid has carefully put together. This amendment does three critically important things. First, it is about this Congress conducting its constitutional responsibility to exercise oversight over the executive branch. It is our job, given to us by the Founders. It is our job not to be a rubberstamp Congress, not to be a compliant Congress, not to be a roll- over-and-play-dead Congress, but to challenge, to question, to push; and if things are not going well for our country--be it wages for our workers or be it education for our children or be it deficits as far as the eye can see and debt as far as the eye can see or the war in Iraq-- we need to speak out. And that is what this carefully crafted amendment does. Second, the amendment is about helping to chart a new path forward in Iraq and clearly states that we need a new direction. That is important. There are those on the other side who said this is all about Donald Rumsfeld. It is not all about Donald Rumsfeld. It talks about starting over, starting anew, getting a new strategy in place for success in Iraq. Third, it is about calling for a new civilian leadership. As you know, in this particular version, we do not even mention Donald Rumsfeld's name. We are basically saying it is time to change direction. Things are dangerously heading down the wrong path in Iraq. Let's hear what the latest Pentagon report said. My friends are quoting the Pentagon, as well they should. Let's hear what the Pentagon itself is saying: Concern about civil war within the Iraqi civilian population and among some defense analysts has increased in recent months. Conditions that could lead to civil war exist in Iraq. They pointed out that the average number of weekly attacks--against coalition forces, Iraqi security forces, the civilian population, and infrastructure--increased by 15 percent since last spring. The number of weekly attacks has increased from approximately 640 to nearly 800. July saw the highest level of weekly attacks since military operations began. In California, we have bases that are sending our troops out for their fourth tour of duty--their fourth tour of duty. So we are supposed to sit back and be compliant because it is an election year? Because it is an election year? Just talk to the parents and the families who are losing their family members, who are losing their sons and daughters, who are losing their moms and dads, who are seeing them come back with post-traumatic stress disorder, severe brain injury. Talk to them about it. They could care less if it is an election year. They want us to change course and bring their kids home. The fact is, we could do it if the Iraqis wanted democracy and wanted freedom as much as we wanted it for them. You show me one country that survives that cannot take care of its own security. Sectarian violence is what is going on over there. As a result of our flawed policy, we are shorting the war on terror. We are not protecting our ports. The money is going to Iraq. It is being sucked out of the Treasury, going onto the backs of our grandchildren, to the tune of over $300 billion. And where is the money for port security? Where is the money to protect our nuclear powerplants? Where is the money to protect our infrastructure? Where is the money to protect our aircraft from shoulder-fired missiles, when we know that at least two dozen terrorist organizations have those missiles and the FBI has warned us over and over that we need to do something about it? Oh, they have to slow-walk it because they do not have the money--except for tax cuts to billionaires. They have the money for that. So the bottom line is, this flawed strategy is shorting the war on terror. Secretary Rumsfeld how wrong could he be? He said he doubted this war would even last even 6 months. But he cannot admit a mistake. The fact is, when we went into Iraq without a plan, we turned away from the war on terror. Every single Senator voted for the war on terror-- every single Senator. I remember writing a speech, coming to this floor, and giving strong support to this President to go get Osama bin Laden, to go break the backs of terrorists, to go break the backs of al-Qaida to do it--and I would give him everything he needed. The whole world was with us. Go back to those days. Everyone was with us. But, oh, no, he had this thing, he was going to go into Iraq, even though his own State Department showed there was not one al-Qaida cell in Iraq. There were more al-Qaida cells in America than in Iraq. Took the money, took the energy, took the military, spread them thin, thought this war would be over in a nanosecond. And we have been misled. We have been misled. So this is a very sensible resolution. Let me just read you the operative language: Our troops deserve and the American people expect the Bush Administration to provide competent civilian leadership and a true strategy for success in Iraq. President Bush needs to change course in Iraq to provide a strategy for success. One indication of a change, of course, would be to replace the current Secretary of Defense. Mr. President, this resolution is written with respect to the President. It does not demean anybody. I believe it is very carefully drawn, and I think it speaks for the American people. If you look at the polls today, they are begging us--begging us--to change course. And I will tell you, it has not been easy for the American people to make their feelings known because they have changed. In the beginning, they were all for this. But they have seen what has happened. We cannot close our eyes to what is happening. And then when the Secretary of Defense looks at those of us in America--a vast majority who oppose this war--and says we do not understand history and we are appeasers, that has gone just too far. I say to the Secretary and to this President: Get with the current times. I even heard Secretary Rice talk about how this was somehow akin to the people who did not want to fight the Civil War. Talk about drawing up analogies that do not make any sense, there is another one. Let's change course now. And let's start by approving this resolution. At the minimum, I say to my friends on the Republican side, let us vote on this resolution. It is our job to speak out. It is our job to do oversight. And let the votes fall where they may. But the American people deserve this vote. I thank my leader for putting this resolution together. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing and congratulating the Center for Independent Living-- Fresno for 30 years of dedicated service empowering people with disabilities in Fresno, Kings, Madera, and Merced counties. Since opening their doors in 1976, this organization has made significant contributions to the lives of the Central Valley's disabled community and their family members. For the past three decades, the Center for Independent Living--Fresno has been a respected leader in advocating for people with disabilities to live independent lives. They strongly uphold the principle that everyone should be afforded the opportunity to thrive and live independently in their own communities. The dedicated staff of the Center of Independent Living--Fresno work tirelessly to ensure that those who are in need of their support are treated with the respect and dignity that all people deserve. Through the center, thousands of people have learned invaluable tools to help them become self-advocates and lead productive lives. I congratulate the Center for Independent Living--Fresno on its 30th anniversary and wish its staff and supporters even greater success as they continue to provide important services to people with disabilities. You are not only a tremendous asset for your clients, but you perform a great service for the Central Valley community.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mrs. BOXER. I am happy to yield to my friend.

Mrs. BOXER. I will be happy to do so.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise today, as we debate the Defense Appropriations bill, to talk about the leadership of the Secretary of Defense and to relay to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle what I heard, as I was out and about in California, about his comments and the need, in my opinion, to change direction at the Department of Defense. During this break, I was home in California working. There is a lot of anxiety in the land. Today, a new poll came out and showed a huge percentage of the American people--a huge percentage--angry, actually angry about what is happening in this country today. If you probe and find out, there are many issues. They are angry about the economy, which they are part of, where they see corporate profits way up but wages stagnant or falling--wages that cannot even keep up with inflation. They are angry at deficits. They are angry at debt. They are angry at good jobs going overseas. They are angry at the oil companies. They are angry at this Congress for doing nothing about that, not even supporting antigouging legislation. But the one thing they are angry and upset about more than any other is the war in Iraq. So I think it is time that the Senate go on record and state very clearly that we are not satisfied with the way things are going. We are angry as well. We are upset as well. So over the recess, when Secretary Rumsfeld made his latest speech, which turned into an attack on the American people who oppose this war--61 percent of the people; he called them appeasers--I just said enough is enough, and I announced that I was preparing a resolution asking the President for new leadership at the Pentagon. I know today Secretary Rumsfeld is having elective surgery on his shoulder. I want him to know this is not about his personality, it is about his policies. I wish him well today. But I do think it is time for new leadership at the Department of Defense. Last week, Secretary Rumsfeld compared critics of the Bush administration's failed policies in Iraq to those who wanted to appease fascism and Nazism in the run up to World War II. On this rampage, he said that those people who oppose this administration's war in Iraq failed to learn the lessons of history. I have served in the Congress since 1983. I was sworn into the House that year, and in 1992 was sworn into the Senate. So it has been a long time. I have served with four Presidents, Republicans and Democrats. I have yet to see a situation where a President of the United States, in the middle of a horrific situation where we are losing our beautiful young men and women every day, where they are coming home with post- traumatic stress disorder, with severe brain injuries--and I am very pleased that Senators Durbin and Allen have gotten together so we have a bipartisan amendment to help our soldiers as they come home dealing with these brain injuries--but I have never seen a President of any party offer no hope, no exit, no way out. The best this President can say is: As long as I am President, we are going to be in Iraq. Is that a policy? Is that a plan? Is that a strategy? Is that hope? It isn't. We hear the Secretary of Defense essentially give no hope either. His answer is to lash out at those of us who want to give some hope, who want to find a way out of this. But he went too far. He went too far because he attacked the American people. That is what he did. I believe that Secretary Rumsfeld, who thinks that those of us who believe this war is not going well and that we need an exit strategy are wrong, is failing to learn the lessons of history as he melds together the war on terror and the war in Iraq. He says we don't understand history. I say to him: I voted to go to war against the terrorists. Every single Senator, Democrat and Republican, voted to go after the people who attacked us, voted to go after the terrorists. Let me remind the Secretary that according to a publication of this administration's own Department of State, there was not at that time one al-Qaida cell in Iraq, when there were many here in America. So don't blend this. It isn't going to work anymore. The people are too smart for this. It was al-Qaida who struck the United States on September 11, 2001--not Iraq--a country that didn't have a single al- Qaida cell. It had a brutal dictator worthy of the worst possible fate but not one al-Qaida cell, by this administration's own reports that I have made public time and time again. The American people get it. Today, 61 percent of the American people, nearly two-thirds of all Americans, oppose the war in Iraq. The American people are right. They understand the difference. They understand that the President and the Secretary of Defense, saying over and over: Iraq, war on terror, same thing, doesn't make it true. When President Bush was asked directly a few weeks ago on August 21, he said: Iraq had nothing to do with the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001. But then I am assuming everyone gets together and says: Well, the only way we can try to win over the American people and get them on the side of this war is to tell them over and over again that the Iraq war is about getting the terrorists. While Osama bin Laden is on the loose, while the Taliban are gaining strength in Afghanistan, while we took our eye off that prize, while we lost the support of the world, we went into Iraq. Secretary Rumsfeld is wrong when he says we don't understand this. Osama bin Laden remains at large. America is bogged down in a war that becomes increasingly costly in dollars. My last memory is that it is costing $8 billion a month. Eight billion dollars a month, while we can't get $1 billion to take care of 1 million kids who have no place to go after school. That is just one comparison. While we are told we can't afford interoperable communications for our police, $8 billion a month is being spent in Iraq. And the treasure of our young people, each and every day--today I heard right now, another four--today, another four. Now, here is the situation: We have to hold people accountable. When I face the electorate, I am held accountable. Everything I ever did that people didn't like, believe me, I hear about it. There are 30- second commercials about it and people get to look at it and they hold me accountable. Secretary Rumsfeld should be held accountable. Time and time again he has been wrong about Iraq, and time and time again he has responded to his own mistakes by playing politics and attacking the American people and their patriotism if they oppose his ill-advised decisions and now calling them appeasers. Appeasers, the new ``word du jour.'' It was Secretary Rumsfeld who failed to heed the warnings of military planners and experts that the overthrow of the Iraqi regime would be a prolonged and costly undertaking. In fact, he failed to heed even his own advice. I would like to share Secretary Rumsfeld's own words with you to illustrate this point. This is what Secretary Rumsfeld said his guidelines would be: U.S. leadership must be brutally honest with itself, the Congress, the public, and coalition partners. We must not make the effort sound even marginally easier or less costly than it could become. Preserving U.S. credibility requires that we promise less, or no more, than we are sure we can deliver. It is a great deal easier to get into something than it is to get out of it. Now, this is the text of a memorandum: ``Guidelines to be considered when committing forces,'' written by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in March 2001. So this is 2 years before Iraq. ``It is a great deal easier,'' he said, ``to get into something than it is to get out of it.'' But he didn't follow his own guidelines. He never even had a plan to get out of it. So I remember very clearly his other quote. He said: This war could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months. That was February of 2003. And then he said in February of 2003: There is no question but that American forces would be welcomed by the majority of the civilian population of Iraq. Now, if he said this and no more--I would say you have to hold someone responsible who has done all of this: set out guidelines and then turns around and doesn't pay attention to his own guidelines; predicts the war would, at tops, last 6 months, he doubted it; and that we would be welcomed by the majority of the civilian population of Iraq. He ought to tell that to a mother I just met with whose military son was training the Iraqi military when one of the Iraqi military killed him in cold blood. Tell that--tell that to the military moms that I meet with. It was Secretary Rumsfeld who said on March 30, 2003: We know where they are, the weapons of mass destruction. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat. I remember sitting across from him, just a few feet, looking right into his eyes after we had started looking for the weapons of mass destruction, and he still held to all that: Oh, I know. You turn left at the fountain. It was that kind of a response. We know exactly where they are. Well, they had relied on people who were phonies. Their intelligence was wrong. But his judgment was to listen to those folks who were known to be exaggerators. It was Secretary Rumsfeld who said on April 11, 2003, in the wake of widespread looting after the fall of Saddam Hussein when they were looting the museums, there was no law, there was no order. We had no plan. Our military did everything that was asked of them and they did it perfectly. There was no plan. And this is what he said in light of this widespread looting: Stuff happens, and it's untidy and freedom's untidy, and free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things. What a message. We now know--and we knew then as we watched it--that this looting set the stage for the climate of fear and lawlessness that persists to this day in Iraq. No plan. Oh, we were going to be there 6 months tops. Our troops were going to be loved. Oh, yeah, and if they just did a little looting, this is nothing. It was Secretary Rumsfeld who sent brave young American men and women into combat without sufficient body armor, telling the young soldier who had the guts to ask him a question about this, he said: As you know, you go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time. What kind of comment is that? Why would he not say: Young man, you had the guts to ask that question, and I am going to make sure that we do everything we have to do to make you as safe as you can be. He needs to go. It was Secretary Rumsfeld who sat back, without doing anything, in the face of widespread violence, the rise of sectarian militias, and the rapid growth of the insurgency. We went and asked questions of him time and time again. It was the same thing, always: Everything is going great. There are a couple of bad apples, a couple of bad apples. It was Secretary Rumsfeld who presided over the Pentagon during the Abu Ghraib Prison abuse scandal which diminished U.S. standing in the world and caused irreparable harm to the image of the U.S. military. I remember looking at a document that the Secretary had approved of, where he said, these are the things that he thinks we should be able to do to the prisoners, and it was pretty shocking. But what has happened to this country is we have never been held in lower esteem, ever, than we are today. This face, Secretary Rumsfeld's face, and this history, Secretary Rumsfeld's history, is dogging this country. I hope the President would see this, and we know he is extremely loyal, but it is time to be loyal to the troops now. It is time to be loyal to the families now. It is time to be loyal to the American people now who are very angry about what they see. It is time for him to go and get a fresh face in there. There are a number of people--and I wouldn't even consider putting any names out because it is not appropriate for me to do that. But there are many men and women in this country who could take on this task and bring a freshness to the job, a new perspective, someone who isn't tied down to past misstatements, past mistakes, and now this attack that he unleashed, this tirade on the American people. It is time for new leadership, new direction, and new vision. We can do better. We have to do better. And I have to say in this conversation that there have been many on the other side of the aisle, both sitting in the Senate and also running for the Senate, who have also shared a critique of this particular Secretary of Defense. There is one in particular on the other side of the aisle who expressed no confidence in Secretary Rumsfeld. A number of retired generals who served our country with honor and distinction have called for Secretary Rumsfeld's resignation over his mishandling of the Iraq war, including GEN Anthony Zinni, GEN Wesley Clark, LTG Gregory Newbold, who actually was part of the team that laid out the invasion plan for Iraq and who appeared before the Foreign Relations Committee and clearly offered a better way a year, a year-and-a-half ago, a better way out of this war. MG John Batiste, MG Charles Swannack, Jr., MG John Riggs, and MG Paul Eaton. We remember what happened. As soon as these generals had the courage to go out and say something, they were slapped down hard by this administration, essentially saying they had no right to express themselves. Well, quite the contrary. Quite the contrary. I heard my leader, Harry Reid, say something very interesting one day. He quoted Teddy Roosevelt, the Republican President, who said something like this. I am paraphrasing, but I am using very similar words. He said: In a time of war, if you don't agree with the commander in chief and you say nothing, you are guilty of treason. That is a Republican President. How much have they changed? Now if you try to say anything, they slap you down. These generals deserve our thanks for having the courage to come forward, having the courage to say we need new leadership at the Pentagon. MG Paul Eaton, who was responsible for training Iraqi security forces from 2003 to 2004--and, by the way, that is a hard job. I saw it being done when I was in Iraq last. MG Paul Eaton wrote in the New York Times on March 19, 2006, that Secretary Rumsfeld, ``has shown himself incompetent strategically, operationally, and tactically, and is far more than anyone else responsible for what has happened to our important mission in Iraq. Mr. Rumsfeld must step down.'' This is not easy for former generals, to say these things. What is important is that we hear them. Not that we say you have no right to speak. This is America. They have the obligation to speak, and each of us has the obligation to speak. No one in this country should be afraid of saying what is on his or her mind. If we get to that point, we are in deep trouble. Talk about the lessons of history--we have our men and women in uniform fighting to give the Iraqis a chance at freedom. They are doing every single thing they can do. They have accomplished every single mission. We can go back to the missions they have completed. Those missions changed constantly. First it was find the weapons of mass instruction. Well, they found they were not there. Then we said get rid of Saddam Hussein, and they captured him and he will meet his fate. Then they said there is some trouble here, let's show we are tough, so they killed his sons, and then the administration chose to put those pictures on television, thinking that would send a message: Don't mess with us. Then they said we have to have an election. Our troops were magnificent. They set the stage for the election. Then they said we have to train their troops, and they trained their troops. Then they said they need another election, and they did it again. They did an extraordinary job. But they cannot want freedom and democracy more than the Iraqis want it. Name one country that could be a country but has to rely on a foreign power to run the country and to provide the security. You can't find a country that is surviving in that situation. You cannot. We just saw, in Lebanon, Hezbollah, a terrorist group, acting like a state within a state. That is unacceptable. The world is coming to Lebanon's rescue. Hopefully it will work and they will stop attacking Israeli soldiers and sending their rockets into Israel and they will leave the Lebanese alone and the Lebanese will protect their security. We cannot do the job of security for the people of Iraq if they are not interested in doing it. Let me say, when I was over there, there is an attitude there that we will just stay forever, that they never have to do this. There is an attitude over there like that. I don't mind being Uncle Sam, but I sure don't want to be Uncle Sucker. This isn't right. This isn't fair. This isn't just, to send our people back and back and back, to second tours of duty, third tours of duty, to do a job the Iraqis must do for themselves. This sectarian violence is the problem. The Bush administration itself, while they try to make this a war on terror, says and teaches us that it is a small percent of the violence that is coming from the terrorists. The vast majority is sectarian violence. That is why the American people are seeing through this. What they are learning is that in fact this operation in Iraq is shorting the war on terror. I spoke before about Afghanistan. We went in there with the vote of every single Senator, to get the terrorists. We had the world in our hands. Then we made a detour, turned around, and now Afghanistan is having trouble. That should have been the model we used. That would have sent the message. We would have gotten bin Laden. We would have ended the Taliban. Now they are all creeping back in, as is the drug trading. This adventure in Iraq has weakened the war on terror. When Secretary Rumsfeld refuses to see that clearly and tells us it is all one, he is confusing the public purposely because he sees, politically, the people are catching on. How many more troops do we have to lose? Madam President, 2,652 troops have lost their lives in Iraq and nearly 20,000 have been wounded. The cost of this war will soon reach $318.5 billion. We don't have enough money to insure our children for health care. We don't have enough money to protect our ports. We don't have enough money for interoperable communications. We don't have enough money to protect our nuclear powerplants and our railroads. And while we are taking away lip gel from women on planes, they are still not checking the cargo that goes inside the planes. We can't afford it--oh, no. But we can afford this and tax cuts to millionaires--again and again and again. I guess we can afford these deficits and we can afford the debt that is reaching such a major proportion that it is not only our children but our grandchildren, and maybe theirs, who will have to pay off this debt. And we were on our way to a debt-free America when this administration took over. We have shortchanged the war in Afghanistan, which is the central front of the war on terror. According to the New York Times, suicide bombings have doubled. The roadside bombs attacks, modeled after those carried out in Iraq, are up 30 percent. The United Nations announced Saturday that this year's opium crop in Afghanistan has reached the highest levels ever recorded, yielding extraordinary profits that we know fall back into the hands of the very people we are trying to defeat. Tragically, attacks against schools are on the rise, and attacks against women. In January, armed men in the Zabul province of Afghanistan beheaded a high school headmaster in front of his children. By March, half of the schools in the province had closed and attacks reached an average of one a day. We are losing ground. Iraq, Iraq, Iraq--24/7--Iraq, Iraq, Iraq. There are no time lines, no deadlines, no hope, no vision, no plan. The only thing we know from this President is, as long as I am in power, he says, we will be in Iraq. We are weaker in Afghanistan because of Iraq. We are weaker on homeland security. I call this administration soft on homeland defense because they will not do what needs to be done. There are things we could do right now, today, that absolutely make eminent sense. They are not politics. They are not politics. The 9/11 Commission came out with a number of recommendations, dozens of them. We know they said that it is important that we either screen the cargo for explosives--the cargo that goes on passenger planes--or we have blast-resistant cargo containers installed so if there is a blast, it will remain inside the container and not bring the airplane down. Do you think this administration will do this? Let me tell you no, and let me tell you how I know--because I sit on the Commerce Committee. We have jurisdiction over the FAA. Years ago, I had an amendment pass the committee that said: Let's test these blast- resistant containers. Usually they would be made out of Kevlar. If you have ever seen Kevlar, had an experience with Kevlar, you know this is a fantastic product we can use. Oh, no, they are still studying it. And they are still not inspecting cargo. So when we are told the alerts are up, of course we have every reason to be worried because we are not doing what we should be doing because we are spending $8 billion a month on Iraq, we are spending $318 billion, we are stretching our military thin, we are soft on homeland defense, and we have neglected Afghanistan. The face of this policy, in addition to the President, is Secretary Rumsfeld. Now as he looks around the world, he has to see it. Everybody does see it. You can dream about a better world, but all you have to do is open any newspaper--I don't care whether it is a liberal or conservative one or independent or moderate--and you know what is happening on the ground all over the world. You see it. From Darfur to Afghanistan to Iraq to Iran to North Korea to London--where, thank God they foiled the plot of the terrorists there. Instead of saying maybe it is time we just look at our priorities and do a little bit more--we all know in America that the war on terror is going to be with us. We all know we have to be prepared. We all know they do not give up. We all know they will try again. We all know al- Qaida is still out there, with bin Laden--but even if it didn't have bin Laden, it would still be out there. Yet what does Secretary Rumsfeld do? He starts a fight by calling the American people, who do not agree with him--the majority, vast majority--appeasers when they understand very clearly that the war in Iraq is a diversion from the war on terrorism and that we are failing on the war on terrorism because we have not invested in it and haven't focused on it. The American people want us to do that. It is time for a new direction. I brought to the attention of the Senate the threat from shoulder- fired missiles. Two dozen terrorist organizations have them. They sit on the shoulder, they weigh 35 pounds, and they can catch an airplane. Oh, they are slow-walking that. They just don't have the money. They tested it, but they are slow-walking it. It is time for accountability. I do not think staying the course with a failing policy in Iraq has anything to do with appeasing the Nazis before World War II. Get with the current moment, Mr. Secretary and Mr. President. Let's get a fresh face over at the Department of Defense. Let's move forward with hope. Let's move forward with a plan. Let's win back the confidence of the American people together, all of us. And let's win back the confidence of the world. I believe it starts with accountability. That is why I plan to support an amendment that will be offered to this bill calling for new leadership at the Department of Defense. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 4858, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Lindsey Graham be added as the principal cosponsor of this amendment.

Mrs. BOXER. I am very pleased with that. I am very pleased he is here. I am also very pleased there appears to be good support for this amendment. We are going to have a record vote because we both believe it is very important to send a loud and clear message about the subject of this amendment. This amendment ensures that no funds in this bill will be used to enter into an agreement with the Government of Iraq that would subject U.S. military forces in any way to the jurisdiction of Iraqi criminal courts or punishment under Iraqi law. I think it is very important that we all understand that U.S. military forces are governed by law. They must comply with the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and they must comply with the Geneva Conventions. But, currently, U.S. military forces are immune from Iraq's legal system, and Senator Graham and I want to make sure that this will continue to be the case. This policy was set by the Coalition Provisional Authority, Order No. 17, and it is supported by U.N. Security Council Resolution 1546. But here is the reason we think it is important for us to speak out, hopefully, with a uniform voice today. Last month, Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said this policy should change. He is the Prime Minister of Iraq. He said: We believe that the immunity given to international forces is what emboldens them to commit such crimes in cold blood. This requires that such immunity should be reconsidered. So the Prime Minister said that this immunity from his laws ought to be reconsidered. It seems, in a difficult time in Iraq--and Lord knows we won't get into all of it--where there is disagreement among the factions there, everyone seems to agree that, in fact, changing this policy to ensure that American troops are under the Iraqi court's jurisdiction is a good idea. They think it is a good idea. We do not, and we want to make sure it does not happen. Prime Minister Maliki also suggested that the Iraqi Parliament review the policy of immunity for American troops. Let's look at what the Iraqi Parliament is saying about U.S. troops. I want to make sure we understand. It is not every member of the Parliament but some members of the Iraqi Parliament. And let's keep in mind we have lost in excess of 2,500 troops there. They are gone, never to come home again. Every day, sadly--it feels like every day--I have to write a condolence letter to someone who lost a son or daughter. We now have in excess of 19,000 wounded. We know that we have a third of our soldiers coming back in the first year seeking mental health help. We know we have a lot of our soldiers experiencing post-traumatic stress. We have given, and taxpayers are still giving--it is the gift that keeps on giving--money, billions of dollars, and the lives of our soldiers, and wounded soldiers--all the rest. So when we hear the Speaker of the Iraqi Parliament Mahmoud al- Mashhadani say, ``The U.S. occupation is butcher's work under the slogan of democracy, human rights and justice''--and this is someone who was part of the government, was part of the package when they put together that government--when we hear those words, we not only take tremendous offense at those words, we not only get sick about those words, whether we supported this war or voted against it, we want to make sure that not one of our soldiers comes under the jurisdiction of an Iraqi court with political statements behind it like that. Let me tell you what else the Speaker of the Iraqi Parliament said. He called for statues to be built for those who kill American soldiers, saying: I personally think whoever kills an American soldier in defense of his country should have a statue built for him in that country. This makes me sick, to think that we are still there, year after year after year. Now, in my opinion--and I certainly do not speak for someone else when I say this--in this increasingly hostile situation, one that a British leader said was essentially a civil war, imagine us turning over our soldiers to the Iraqi courts when the Speaker of the Parliament, who was part of the Government of Iraq, says: Whoever kills an American soldier in defense of his country should have a statue built for him in that country. Then you have Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, the leader of the dominant Shiite block in Parliament, who called for granting an amnesty for insurgents who had fought against Americans in Iraq--in other words, an amnesty for those who hurt our soldiers--but we should allow our solders, who are fighting for their freedom, to go before an Iraqi court? No way. No way. That is why this amendment is so important today, and I am so pleased that Senator Graham and I have agreed on this. I voted not to go to war. I am working as hard as I can to start bringing our troops home. Senator Graham has different views on this which he will express. But on the issue of our troops being tried in an Iraqi court system, we are in full agreement. This amendment is necessary because on July 6, the Washington Post reported: An Iraqi government official, who spoke on the condition that he not be named, said Mr. Maliki hoped to revise Order No. 17 when the United Nations resolution authorizing the presence of American forces in Iraq is up for renewal at the end of the year. Of course, that order is the order I referred to at the beginning of my comments which protects our troops from being tried in an Iraqi court. It is critical that Congress be heard on this issue. I am very hopeful that we will be heard loud and clear, and I am expecting that we will. Senator Graham and I also agree that those who commit crimes have to be held accountable for their crimes. Of course we do. But as I said before, there is the Uniform Code of Military Justice and there are the Geneva Conventions. Our people must be held accountable for their actions, but we cannot subject our men and women in uniform to an Iraqi judicial system that is in chaos and, frankly, an Iraqi country that is in chaos. Iraq's own Deputy Justice Minister has admitted that Iraqi prisons are overrun with Shiite Muslim militiamen who have freed fellow members convicted of major crimes and have executed Sunni Arab inmates. In Basra, it was reported that militia members took 12 foreign-born prisoners from their cells and shot them in the head. One Iraqi parliamentarian has said he saw as many as 120 detainees packed into a 35-by-20-foot cell, many who claimed they had been raped and their families tortured. We are not going to have Americans in any way get close to that situation over there. U.S. personnel must not be subjected to the Iraqi legal system, especially when you consider that under Iraq's constitution, experts in Islamic jurisprudence can sit on the supreme court even if they have no training in civil law or other relevant subjects. The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom reports that ``such limited training places Iraq's supreme court requirements alongside those of Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, and Iran.'' We are not going to let our soldiers get close to that. Everyone on both sides--all of us, whether we are for this war or against this war--voted yes. We all pray and hope that some day in Iraq there will be a governing body that will bring order, that will bring democracy, that will be respected, and we all hope things don't go in a bad direction. But I tell you today that my view is it is very tough over there. I just told you about some of the things that are happening in their criminal justice system. We can't allow U.S. military personnel to be subjected to Iraq's legal system. Just this morning, GEN John Abizaid told the Senate Armed Services Committee that ``sectarian violence is probably as bad as I have seen it.'' He said that today in the Senate Armed Services Committee. It was reported today that the outgoing British Ambassador to Iraq wrote a confidential memo to Prime Minister Tony Blair saying that ``the prospect of a low intensity civil war and a de facto division of Iraq is probably more likely at this stage than a successful and substantial transition to a stable democracy.'' That is a very disheartening thing for the American people to hear. Things are very tough--as tough as they have ever been in Iraq. This is certainly not the time to leave any impression out there whatsoever that this is the time we could say that our soldiers would be somehow trapped inside the Iraqi legal system. The Boxer-Graham amendment makes common sense. U.S. military personnel must be held accountable for their actions, but not by the Iraqi Government, by the U.S. Code of Military Justice, by the Geneva Conventions. I am very proud to be working with my friend on this issue. I yield the floor and hope that at this time, he would be recognized to make his comments as to why we have come together on this important amendment

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I hope you could modify the request--that no second-degree amendments be permitted.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, Senator Feinstein and I would like to thank the Senator from Alaska and the Senator from Hawaii for their outstanding leadership on this bill and especially for their dedication to ensuring that our Nation's combat-wounded service members receive the best possible services and care. I would like to ask both Senators to work with us during conference negotiations in support of funding for the Northern California Institute of Research and Education, NCIRE. This funding will support the work of the Neuroscience Center of Excellence at the San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center--a state-of-the-art facility dedicated to the diagnosis, prevention, and management of neurodegenerative diseases, brain and spinal cord injuries, and neuropsychiatric disorders such as post-traumatic stress disorder, PTSD, that occur in U.S. warfighters. I had the privilege of recently visiting NCIRE. Let me tell you, the work they are doing is cutting-edge and absolutely vital to our Nation's warfighters and veterans. They are developing new ways to diagnose and treat PTSD in an effort to ensure that our more recent veterans do not share the same fate as so many of those from earlier conflicts, including Vietnam. I had the honor of meeting a Vietnam veteran during my visit to NCIRE who told me that he just got his life back because of NCIRE's work. This is a man who served his country and came back to spend much of his time jobless, homeless, and without hope. NCIRE is working to make sure that our Iraq and Afghanistan veterans do not share the same fate.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I celebrate the grand opening of the Rotary Clubs of Modesto Centennial Junction section of the Virginia Corridor and to recognize the United Rotary Clubs of Modesto's extraordinary contributions and support for the Virginia Corridor Rails-to-Trails project. When I visited the site in July of 2002, the Virginia Corridor was very much just an idea. However, as a result of the hard work of a number of city officials and staff members, and the determination of a group of motivated citizens, the entire Virginia Corridor will soon become a reality. The United Rotary Clubs of Modesto, an organization that played an instrumental role to this project, is comprised of the five local Rotary clubs: the Modesto Rotary Club, the Modesto East Rotary Club, the Modesto Gateway Rotary Club, the Modesto North Rotary Club, and the Modesto Sunrise Rotary Club. Together, the local rotary clubs contributed significant funding for the trail segment between Roseburg and Orangeburg Avenues. The rotary clubs donated and installed lighting, a 10-foot wide asphalt trail surface, a kiosk, fencing and irrigation. This quarter mile trail, which will be known as the Rotary Clubs of Modesto Centennial Junction of the Virginia Corridor, features a trail with lighting, landscaping, benches, picnic tables and seat walls. The Virginia Corridor Rails-to-Trails project is a truly collaborative effort between the city of Modesto, the State of California, the Federal Government, and a host of local community interests that, once completed, will successfully transform a once abandoned rail corridor into a premier linear park, trail and recreational gathering place in one of the fastest growing cities in California's Central Valley. When completed, the Virginia Corridor will stretch nearly 4 miles from Modesto's central business district to the northern boundary of the city. Once completed, this trail will link neighborhoods by providing a safe and scenic commuter route to schools, parks, and restaurants for bicyclists and pedestrians. The Virginia Corridor will also offer a place for Modesto's outdoor enthusiasts to pursue a myriad of outdoor activities, as it will link three primary bike paths that include: the Hetch Hetchy Trail in North Modesto, the class I trails in Dry Creek Regional Park and the Tuolumne River Regional Park. I congratulate the city of Modesto on the opening of the Rotary Clubs of Modesto Centennial Junction of the Virginia Corridor. I especially commend the invaluable contributions of the United Rotary Clubs of Modesto which, through their generosity and commitment to public service, have provided a community jewel that will go a long way towards improving the quality of life for the people of Modesto.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to an extraordinary woman, renowned reproductive health expert Dr. Felicia Hance Stewart. Dr. Stewart died on April 13 at the age of 63. Her energy, compassion, intelligence and tireless commitment to women's health made a difference for countless women in the U.S. and around the world. Dr. Stewart's keen mind and affinity for medicine were apparent from her distinguished educational background. She received her bachelor of arts degree from the University of California, Berkeley, graduating Phi Beta Kappa and with honors in biochemistry. In 1969, she received her M.D. degree from Harvard University Medical School. She did her postgraduate training at Cambridge City Hospital in Massachusetts and at the University of California, San Francisco Medical Center. Dr. Stewart's passion for empowering women through increased access to reproductive health services was evident throughout her extraordinary career. Dr. Stewart began her practice in obstetrics and gynecology in Sacramento, working for Sutter Medical Group, doing clinical research with a focus on contraceptives. She also worked as associate medical director of Planned Parenthood in Sacramento. In 1994, Dr. Stewart was appointed Deputy Assistant Secretary for Population Affairs in the Clinton administration's Department of Health and Human Services, HHS. Working with then-Secretary of HHS Donna Shalala, Dr. Stewart was the senior expert responsible for family planning. In 1996, she became director of Reproductive Health Programs at the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation in Menlo Park, CA. She was most recently codirector of the Bixby Center for Reproductive Health Research and Policy at UCSF. Dr. Stewart wrote ``Understanding Your Body: Everywoman's Guide to a Lifetime of Health,'' 1987, and ``My Body, My Health: The Concerned Woman's Guide to Gynecology and Health,'' 1979. She cowrote ``Contraceptive Technology,'' a major professional reference book that has been published in 18 editions, and ``Emergency Contraception: The Nation's Best Kept Secret.'' She also published nearly 100 scientific journal articles. Dr. Stewart's passionate and reasoned advocacy for increasing access to emergency contraception brought national attention to this critical women's health issue. Dr. Stewart was instrumental in conducting research which established that emergency contraception was safe and effective without a physician's prescription. Her research has helped increase access to emergency contraception in pharmacies throughout California. In 1973, after Roe v. Wade was handed down, none of us thought we still would be fighting the same battle to protect fundamental women's reproductive rights in 2006. But the fight is more challenging than ever. Not only are we fighting to maintain abortion rights, but access to comprehensive health services, including contraception. Dr. Felicia Stewart was at the forefront of that fight throughout her career. Her work helped prevent countless unintended pregnancies and empowered women to take control of their reproductive health. Dr. Stewart impacted many lives, from the women and men she served in clinics to the doctors, researchers and activists she inspired to follow in her footsteps. She leaves us with the inspiration to work harder and never give up the fight to secure the full range of reproductive health services for women. She leaves a lasting legacy that will not be forgotten. Dr. Stewart is survived by her son Matthew Stewart and daughter Kathryn Stewart; her parents Lena and Harold Hance; her brother Allan Hance; stepchildren Tammy Barlow, Wayne Stewart, and Michael Stewart. I am proud to have stood with Dr. Felicia Stewart in our fight to increase access to women's reproductive health services. She was a wonderful ally and supporter of my work in the Senate. She will be greatly missed.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be dispensed with.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, thank you so much for your courtesy--and my colleagues. I wanted to be heard on this bill. I haven't spoken on it. It is a bill that I call a drilling bill; I don't call it an energy bill. I rise to speak against it, and I am against it for three very simple reasons. First, I have no assurances--nor does Senator Feinstein--that the California coast will continue to be protected from new offshore oil and gas drilling. That protection is crucial to my State, to my State's economy, and, of course, it is crucial to the promise that we made to our children and our grandchildren--that this coast will be forever protected. It is one of God's greatest gifts to our State. Every history book that writes about California talks about the beauty of our State--and it starts with the ocean. We know if we lose that beauty it is irreplaceable. I also wanted to make a point to my friends that in our State, offshore oil drilling is an issue that unites the vast majority of Republicans and Democrats. They do not want to see it happen, whether it is our Governor or our Democratic candidate for Governor. They are in full agreement. This is an issue that unites California. Clearly, we know that our economy is heavily reliant on tourism. It is reliant on fisheries. And offshore oil drilling threatens both of those economic engines. Second, this bill will drain billions of dollars from the Federal Treasury. That is indisputable. And it does nothing to help us meet the critical goal of reducing America's dependence on oil. As a matter of fact, this bill deepens our dependence on oil. Achieving real energy independence must be more than just a slogan. In this unbalanced bill, we admit our addiction to oil. As a matter of fact, I heard many colleagues say we need more oil, that we need this oil. But with this bill, we continue to feed this habit. I personally believe there are places in this country where you can drill off the coast. I respect Senator Landrieu very much, and I don't have a problem if there is unanimity that there ought to be drilling off her state's coast. And I support her efforts to have some conservation fund to restore the area. But what are we getting on the other side? We are getting drilling, we are feeding the addiction to oil. It seems to me we are getting nothing because we are not allowed to amend this bill with some forward-thinking amendments. We are getting, for sure, a greater and greater deficit and a greater and greater debt. How would we better balance this bill? We should promote vehicle technologies that get better gas mileage. We can develop and incentivize the use of alternative fuels. We can encourage energy conservation. We have seen countries such as Brazil just within a 10-year timeframe become independent of foreign oil--become energy independent. But guess what. Because the Republican leadership won't allow it, we cannot offer any amendments to alter this bill. It is either drilling and giving four States a ton of money to reward them for that, causing the Federal deficit to swell, or it is nothing. It is sad because this is a great country. It is a country of great ideas. Yet the ideas on both sides of the aisle take a back seat to the same old, same old, drill, drill, drill. We can't drill our way out of this problem. As tempting as the mirage of a quick fix might be, we must not endanger the California coast with new drilling. And that is what will happen if this bill is merged with the House drilling bill. If the House would take the Senate bill, then I would breathe a sigh of relief for my State--and the west coast and the east coast can also breathe a sigh of relief. But we don't have any assurances that the Pombo bill, which will open up the door to drilling in the most beautiful areas, will not become part of this bill. Let me tell you that Californians--again, across party lines-- rejected coastal drilling long ago. Even in the days when our State was a red State, we rejected offshore oil drilling across party lines. It was because we had a devastating Santa Barbara rig blowout that contaminated our ocean waters and beaches almost 40 years ago. The memories of that are still ever present. The memories of that also became a warning sign that we want to preserve our precious coast. The people of California decided that the potential benefits of future offshore oil and gas development were not worth the risk of destroying our priceless coastal treasures and our most important tourist industry that draws millions and millions to our coast. I ask anyone listening to this debate: Is there a time when you visit California that you don't go to the coast? Everyone comes to our coast. What you do there is observe the wonder of an unspoiled coastline. There are certain areas where we do have drilling. But for many years we have kept the moratorium in place. When you go to our coastline, from the very far north of the State, down to the south, what you see is God's beauty. When you come to our State and you stay in our beautiful hotels and our bed and breakfasts and go to our restaurants, often having a view of our ocean, you can't help but come away in awe that this is a gift that has been given to us, and a gift that we must preserve. It brings dollars to our State. This is one of those times when it is the right thing to do economically to keep that coast beautiful. It is the right thing to do spiritually. And, it is the right thing to do environmentally. The California State legislature understands it. In 1994 they passed a law that permanently prohibits oil and gas exploration in our State's waters. I thank them for that. We learned the lesson that drilling is dangerous. We learned it the hard way. The Senate bill, if it is merged with the House bill, could be disastrous for the California environment and economy. We know it is disastrous for the Federal Treasury. By the year 2017, four States in our Nation would be entitled to $590 million per year; by 2022, $1.2 billion per year. These States will get part of the Federal Treasury. We cannot afford this kind of imbalanced fiscal policy at a time when the Federal deficit is expected to be $300 billion this year and the national debt is over $8.4 trillion and growing. I think back to the year that President Clinton left office. The budget projections were that we were going to be debt free. Since my friends on the other side have taken control, deficits are back in full bloom. The debt is back and this bill adds to the debt and the deficit. How could we possibly do that today? Sadly, we are not only doing it with the energy bill, we are doing it in another bill I will talk about in a minute. How about this? No amendments allowed to this bill. What is the other side afraid of? We might have an amendment that will pass? We might have an amendment that increases fuel economy for our automobiles? We might have an amendment that makes sure we have flex-fuel vehicles? We might have an amendment pass that invests in cellulosic ethanol so we can have more farmers get into this act and produce ethanol from products other than corn? That would not use up as much energy to produce. Americans are paying $3 per gallon at the pump. By the way, in my State, in San Diego, I saw gas at over $4 for full serve. Talk about sticker shock, picture that one. There is not one thing in this bill about going after the gougers. What are they afraid of on the other side of the aisle? That we will go after the people who are essentially holding us up at the pump every single day? They say the gas prices are going through the roof because of unrest in the Middle East and Nigeria and companies are simply passing along higher costs. If that were true, it would be one thing. It isn't true. How do we know? While the American people are suffering, the oil companies are raking in record profits. If this were simply about passing along higher costs, the oil companies' profits would be flat. I used to be an economics major. It is pretty basic. If you are passing along costs, your profits are flat. But if you are passing along costs plus a huge increase in profit, your profits are up. Yes, Senator Cantwell, who had a great provision to go after the gougers, was not allowed to offer it as an amendment. Oil executives prosper. We have seen them, by the way, come before our committee. Senator Cantwell and I tried to swear them in. The Republican chairman would not allow us to swear in the oil company executives. I found that to be a bit disgraceful. So they were not under oath. By the way, they did not tell the truth, either. The fact is, transportation fuel costs for families have doubled since the Bush administration has taken office. Yet we cannot offer an amendment to go after the oil companies because the Republicans, who run the House, who run the Senate, and run the White House, do not want the oil companies to face the music. Pretty simple. I thought we were a country of, ``by and for the people.'' It turns out we are a country of, ``by and for the oil companies.'' You do not learn that in your textbooks. We have to do better. Democrats have written a bill called the Clean EDGE Act that would require increases in flex-fuel vehicle production, that would make price gouging a Federal crime, would provide incentives for manufacturing hybrid cars, and would set minimum fuel economy standards for tires. Why do you need standards for tires? Efficient tires on cars and keeping them inflated to the proper pressure improve mileage and would cut oil consumption by 160 million barrels per year. But we cannot offer an amendment. No, we cannot offer an amendment. They are protecting the oil companies. Why are we surprised? The President is an oil man. The Vice President is an oil man. My Democratic colleagues and I have worked with Republicans to raise CAFE standards. That is the corporate average fuel economy. That is what CAFE is. The Ten-in-Ten Fuel Economy Act would raise CAFE standards for all vehicles, including SUVs, from 25 miles per gallon to 35 by 2017. This is a bill written by my colleagues, Senator Feinstein and Senator Snowe, but they cannot offer their amendment. Why? Because the Republicans want to protect the oil companies as the price for gas goes up. By closing the SUV loophole, we could save the equivalent of one Alaska National Wildlife Refuge every 7 years. We do not have to drill our way out of this crisis in the God-given wild places. We just need to be a little smarter. We can do it. I had amendments I would have offered that would have said the Federal Government has to purchase the most fuel-efficient vehicles available. It is kind of a no-brainer, but I cannot offer it. The President could issue an Executive Order today requiring that. He won't do that because he supports the oil companies, folks. Follow it, all of it; it leads back to that one point. The average fuel economy of the Federal fleet was an abysmal 21.4 miles per gallon. I have had, for many years, a hybrid car. The new model, if it is driven properly, gets over 50 miles per gallon. Surely, we can do better than 21.4 miles a gallon. I would have offered an amendment to promote research for cellulosic ethanol, a type of fuel produced by agricultural waste. Promoting this innovative fuel will reduce our dependence on oil and provide our Nation's farmers with new income sources. No, I could not offer it because they are protecting the oil companies. It all comes back to that. With no amendments, we have a narrow drilling bill that busts the budget. We had an opportunity to work together across the aisle and come up with a comprehensive energy bill. But instead, we are going to protect the oil companies. So we have more of the same failed policies that, in the end, could, in fact, endanger all of our coasts. Once again, we call on the Republican leadership to start standing up for an energy policy for this country; not a narrow drilling bill that busts the Federal budget but an energy policy that will save the budget of the American people and help our economy by being on the cutting edge of these technologies. If a country such as Brazil can do it, aren't we a little embarrassed that we can't? We are so far behind, it is extraordinary. I guess when you run the Senate for the oil companies, that is what you get at the end of the day. I find it incredible that this Republican Congress that is supposed to care about fiscal responsibility has thrown fiscal responsibility out the window. You have this bill that will drain the Treasury of over $1 billion a year over time. Then we have this grand compromise in the House headed our way that is going to make changes in the tax laws that impact the top 8,200 wealthiest families in America. It will cut their taxes and, again, rob the Treasury of billions of dollars. Guess what they say. They didn't care too much about that. Let me tell the truth about what is headed our way, folks. The moderates on the House side went over to the leadership and said--these are the Republicans--we need to vote on the minimum wage because we may lose our seats. We are looking crass and cold because we have never had the ability to vote for the minimum wage because you never let us get it through. So we need to pass a minimum wage increase. The leadership said: We have not done that in 10 years. We are not about to do it now. But maybe we could figure out a way to twist that around and cut back on that minimum wage increase and let those people at the bottom of the ladder struggle a bit longer while we give tax breaks to the wealthiest 8,200 families. But we will send it over to the Senate, and if they vote no because they decide they do not want to bust the budget, they will look bad because they have been calling for an increase in the minimum wage. A long time ago when I was a girl, there was a great man who went up against Senator Joe McCarthy. He said to him: Have you no shame? We ought to bring out those words again. I say to my friends, have you no shame? People who work at the minimum wage have not had a raise in almost 10 years. You, Senators, have had a raise almost every year. How about tens of thousands of dollars of raises? Finally, because you are caught between a rock and a hard place, you decide to pass an increase in the minimum wage, but you do it over 3 years. I never heard any Senator say: I will take my raise over 3 years. Never, and we get thousands of dollars in 1 year. I never had a colleague come over from the other side of the aisle against raising the minimum wage, saying: We will take our raise in 3 years. We will wait 3 years for another increase. No, we get our cost-of-living adjustment, while minimum wage workers are going to wait 3 years. By the way, for some the House bill will be a pay cut. Some States, such as my State, where employers cannot reduce the state minimum wage paid just because a worker receives tips, will now be allowed to cut that worker's wages. Have you no shame? Anyone in this Senate live on $10,000 or $11,000 a year? Do you think if you work your fingers to the bone you should be stuck at that level for 10 long years, while people at the top, like us--and, by the way, we are not at the very top, but we are at the top 1 percent or so--we get our cost-of-living adjustments every single year. I have so much respect for working people. I have tried every year since I have been here to give them a pay raise. I want to give them a pay raise where they can hold their head high and support their families, not tell them they have to wait 3 years to get their full increase after being held to $5.15 an hour for 10 years. By the way, there are many Republicans who do not believe in any minimum wage. There are some I have heard who have been here 20 years and have voted against it every time. So if they had their way the minimum wage would be $2.25 an hour. I am waiting for the Republicans to come up and tell me they want to take their cost-of-living adjustment over 3 years. Then I am waiting for them to say, if they have a spouse who works: If my spouse gets a little extra money, I will give back some of my raise--as they have done with their tip policy. I say to those at the very top of the income ladder, the billionaires out there: You are not asking for this. The truth is, many of us here are very willing to say, on the estate tax, that the exemption should be lifted. We have said that. I am on an amendment to do that. Because it is true that the price of houses has gone up, and we do not want to have this estate tax be an onerous burden to anyone--not to a family, not to a farmer--and we can work it out. But what is coming to us in this ``minimum wage train'' is a lot more than an increase in the minimum wage. It is a cruel hoax because it does not give minimum wage workers that raise in a year--after they have waited for 10 years. And for those workers that receive tips, it may actually decrease their wages if they live in one of six states, including California, that doesn't reduce the minimum wage employers must pay because they get tips. And, of course, it is coupled with this big gift to the richest families of America, which means, at the end of the day, millions--hundreds of millions--and eventually billions of dollars will be drained from the Federal Treasury. And the very people who claim to be fiscally responsible are at it again, adding to the deficit, adding to the debt. This is really a time for people to stand up and be counted. This is really a time to speak the truth. This is a tough time in the world. All of us are heartsick about what is going on in the world, and we all pray for an end to the fighting, not only in Lebanon and in Israel but in Iraq where things are deteriorating every single day. Hard times. In the middle of these hard times, is this the time to say to the wealthiest 8,200 families: ``We are worried about you''? And we will have less money for our troops and we will have less money for our kids. This Senate and this Congress has underfunded the No Child Left Behind Act. Oh, everyone said this was the greatest thing since sliced bread. And I voted for it. I really thought George Bush and my Republican friends would fully fund it. I wrote the afterschool section there. We have a million kids on waiting lists. We cannot take them. Funding for that program has been frozen for years now. This President signed the largest increase in student loan costs ever and the biggest cuts in education ever, but they are going to give a big tax break to the richest 8,200 families. I do not get it. I do not think the American people get it. We are going to find out pretty soon. We have an energy bill that Leader Frist would not let us amend. He is not letting us offer any amendments to slow our oil addiction, to go after the oil companies, to create a bold, new energy policy, get us on the path of energy independence. And then, with Democrats calling for an increase in the minimum wage for 10 years, they give it to us over a 3-year period, when they take their raises to the bank. It is an outrage. Have they no shame? Have they no shame? I do not know. I do not know. I always say here, sometimes I feel like Alice in Wonderland, and I feel that way today. But my voice will be raised on these issues. And the American people will be the judge if these are the kinds of priorities they want: a drilling bill, no energy independence, no antigouging legislation; a minimum wage increase, long overdue, that takes away money from some minimum wage earners; and two budget-busting bills--this one and the one that has the estate tax cut--that are going to add billions and billions to our debt. By the way, in closing, we should know who carries that debt: foreign countries, folks. They pick up the bonds. If they decide to take their money and go home, we are left in a mess. So I hope the American people are listening in on these debates. I look forward to discussing these matters as they come up before the Senate. I thank my colleague very much for his patience.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am pleased and honored to salute labor leader Perry Zimmerman, the distinguished business manager of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, IBEW, Local 1245, and a vice president of the California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO. Perry is retiring after 5 years as IBEW Local 1245 business manager and more than 40 years of outstanding service to the labor community in California, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, and Idaho. Perry Zimmerman began his career at Pacific Gas and Electric Company in 1962. During his 19 years there, he was an active union member, serving as a shop steward, unit chairman, and advisory council member. In 1981, Perry joined the staff of IBEW Local 1245 as business representative, where he served members in Sacramento and the San Francisco Bay Area. After 11 years, he was promoted to assistant business manager and served area members in both the private and public sectors. Perry was elected business manager/financial secretary of IBEW Local 1245 in 2001. He was reelected in 2004 and has held this post ever since. As the leader of more than 18,000 members working for over 50 employers and 100 contractors, Perry Zimmerman is the voice of energy and communication workforces in 5 Western States. During this time, he was also a vice president of the California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO. Throughout his career, Perry has demonstrated great enthusiasm and compassion for his fellow workers. As business manager, Perry was committed to being in regular touch with members, informing them of leadership decisions and requesting their opinions. He has said this was his favorite part of his job. After more than 40 years of service to working families, Perry Zimmerman deserves some time off. Along with his friends and admirers throughout the Western United States, I wish him a long and pleasurable retirement.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague Senator Feinstein to introduce a bill authorizing the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior to make grants to facilitate the establishment of the National Ag Science Center in Stanislaus County, California. This bill will create a facility that will help teach visitors from all across the country about the significance of agriculture in our Nation's culture and economy, the importance of science in agriculture, and California's role as the Nation's preeminent agricultural State. This bill will designate $10 million in total grant funding to help fund construction costs of the center, with the federal share limited to 33 percent of the total cost. I am happy to report that the center is making great progress on raising private donations to complete its share of the construction funding. The center will help promote California's place as the Nation's most diverse and productive agricultural State. With the farmers, growers, and ranchers of our State producing over 350 different crops and commodities, and nearly 80,000 active farming operations, agriculture is one of California's most important industries. From our vineyards and wineries, to the almond, stone fruit, strawberry, cotton, and rice farms, to the citrus groves of central and southern California, to the dairy and cattle ranches across the State, farming and agriculture are ubiquitous in California and impact all of our communities in an important way. The farms, large and small, produce half of America's produce and are exported all across the globe, providing billions of dollars to our economy and balance of trade. The center's mission will place an emphasis on agricultural science education, with interactive, high-technology exhibits designed to foster an understanding of the importance of agriculture, and how science plays an essential role in the farm-to-food process. There will also be a strong focus on highlighting the important relationship between agriculture, conservation, and the environment. I would also like to thank Representatives Cardoza, Matsui and Radanovich for introducing a companion bill in the House of Representatives.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague Senator Feinstein to introduce a bill authorizing the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior to make grants to facilitate the establishment of the National Ag Science Center in Stanislaus County, California. This bill will create a facility that will help teach visitors from all across the country about the significance of agriculture in our Nation's culture and economy, the importance of science in agriculture, and California's role as the Nation's preeminent agricultural State. This bill will designate $10 million in total grant funding to help fund construction costs of the center, with the federal share limited to 33 percent of the total cost. I am happy to report that the center is making great progress on raising private donations to complete its share of the construction funding. The center will help promote California's place as the Nation's most diverse and productive agricultural State. With the farmers, growers, and ranchers of our State producing over 350 different crops and commodities, and nearly 80,000 active farming operations, agriculture is one of California's most important industries. From our vineyards and wineries, to the almond, stone fruit, strawberry, cotton, and rice farms, to the citrus groves of central and southern California, to the dairy and cattle ranches across the State, farming and agriculture are ubiquitous in California and impact all of our communities in an important way. The farms, large and small, produce half of America's produce and are exported all across the globe, providing billions of dollars to our economy and balance of trade. The center's mission will place an emphasis on agricultural science education, with interactive, high-technology exhibits designed to foster an understanding of the importance of agriculture, and how science plays an essential role in the farm-to-food process. There will also be a strong focus on highlighting the important relationship between agriculture, conservation, and the environment. I would also like to thank Representatives Cardoza, Matsui and Radanovich for introducing a companion bill in the House of Representatives.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Nevada. There is a lot of interest in this bill. People want to do something for our young people. People want to avoid these horrible situations. My friend cited the case of a young woman who was raped by her father, yet in this bill, the father retains all rights to take her over a State line. Can you imagine, to sign a parental consent form, a father who raped his daughter? So we want to correct these problems. I yield 5 minutes to Senator Patty Murray and then 2\1/2\ minutes to Senator Lautenberg at the close of the debate.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I was told we have until 5 after, equally divided.

Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Chair. It is the first time all day I have been correct. I yield to Senator Murray 5 minutes and then, at the end of the debate, Senator Lautenberg for 2\1/2\ minutes.