Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, before we yield the 2\1/2\ minutes, this issue of incest is extraordinary. The bill as written ``protects the predators on our children who have committed incest.'' All you have to do is read it. These parents, these fathers, retain their parental rights in the bill. And even under the Ensign amendment it says they cannot sue a friendly person for helping their daughter. The government under this bill can still go after a grandma, or a clergyman who says to a young child, Let me help you, your father raped you. Those vicious criminals retain all their rights. It is an absolute outrage. The point is, why I am in favor of the Lautenberg amendment is the Lautenberg amendment says let us take a step back, let us prevent these pregnancies. And if people want to vote against teen pregnancy prevention, I guess they have a right to do that. How they would explain it is beyond me. We are talking 800,000 teenagers who get pregnant, and in about 18 percent it was not intended. I thank Senator Lautenberg and yield to him the remaining time before the vote.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I yield myself time off the bill. How many minutes is remaining on our side on the general debate on the bill?

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I have not yet had a chance to lay out my objections to this bill. I would like a chance to do that and, of course, those objections have just been elevated given the fact that by just two slim votes, we failed to adopt teen pregnancy prevention legislation, which is, of course, one of the most important issues we face in our society today. We have 800,000 young women whose pregnancies could have been prevented if they had such education. Here we are dealing with a bill that seems to come back before the Senate every election for reasons that the other side can explain. Instead of tackling the issues of health care for our young people, insurance for our young people, pregnancy prevention for our young people, we are dealing with an issue that impacts just a few people. But so be it. The good news is, we have had a debate on teen pregnancy prevention. The whole country got to see it, and they got to see where the votes lined up. It is pretty clear. The other good news is that we had a debate on stem cell research, and we saw a very similar situation where we picked up a few votes on the other side but not enough votes. The President vetoed stem cell research. You want to talk about a health issue, you want to talk about helping the health of our young people who have juvenile diabetes or those who are paralyzed because of an accident; if you want to talk about helping people with Alzheimer's or Parkinson's. But oh no, the President vetoed that. Another four or five votes in this Chamber could have made the difference between having stem cell research and not. But now we are not going to have it. Frankly, in my State, we took matters into our own hands, and Republicans and Democrats together voted for stem cell research, and we have a $3 billion program. This isn't a partisan issue in my State. But oh boy, it is a partisan issue here. It just shows how far to the right we have come in the national debate. So instead of doing something to improve a lot of our people, we are looking at this small issue. We are looking at a bill that, as it is now drafted, protects incest predators. We are working on that, hoping to come to some joint approach that can stop that problem, or part of it anyway. As drafted, this bill throws grandmothers in jail and violates our Constitution. I would say this bill has a problem. Again, we tried to make it better, but even our amendments did not go far enough. We did not have an exception for rape. If a young girl gets raped and she runs to the most trusted adult she knows, perhaps her grandma, and her grandma takes her into her loving arms because she is too scared to go to her parents for whatever reason. We have situations and I will share those with you where girls were so fearful, so frightened, and with good reason, that they couldn't go to their parents. So they go to a loving grandmother. And guess what? Under this bill, the parents can sue the grandmother. Unbelievable. That is Big Brother all right. Talk about family values interfering straight in. It is unbelievable. We tried to fix the thrust of this bill to add on a Teen Pregnancy Prevention Act. We couldn't do it. So this bill, at the end of the day, focuses on a small number of young women crossing State lines with an adult to get an abortion and ignores 800,000 pregnancies which could have been prevented. We had our chance. We had our chance, but, oh no, it is going to be about political correctness. It is going to be about rightwing ideology. Oh no, we can't do that. This bill does nothing to increase communications between parents and teens. It does nothing to stop sexual predators. Most young women who become pregnant already turn to their parents for help. This is a wonderful country. We have loving families, for the most part, loving open families who say to their kids, as I certainly did to mine, and my husband did: Anything you have on your mind, you just come to us. You feel free to tell us. That is how it should be. When I was a child, my mother said I could tell her anything, and I did. I told her anything. She loved me unconditionally and helped me through whatever problem I might have had. With my own children, I tried to emulate my mother. I hope and I think I did that. They are now grown. They take care of me. But what about young people who don't have that warm feeling in their families? What about the millions of victims of violence and abuse? This bill, as it is drafted, hurts just those victims. It doesn't mean to. That is not the purpose of it. But we have found out in our lives that some bills have unintended consequences, and this one sure does. As this bill is drafted, a father who commits incest and takes his daughter over a State line--we are trying to fix it, and we hope we can fix it--that father has rights under this bill. It is an outrage. Nearly half of pregnant teens who have been abused or assaulted are found to be abused and assaulted by a family member. That is the sad truth. Thirty percent of minors who don't tell their parents have experienced violence in the home. In other words, they are too fearful to go to the home where they have suffered violence. They fear violence or they worry that, in a rage, their parents will kick them out if they tell them they have become pregnant. Don't we want them to be safe and secure? Don't we want them to have help from a caring adult? I would hope so. But under this bill, a clergy member who really cares about the family could be sued by parents who abuse their children. A loving grandma or a loving aunt could be sued. Oh, there are no exceptions allowed. Senator Feinstein, unfortunately, is suffering from the flu and cannot be here today. She had an amendment--she cannot offer it--that would have exempted caring clergy and caring relatives. She couldn't be here. This bill is so imperfect that I cannot begin to count the ways. In my State, as I mentioned previously, parental notification laws have been voted down. In general, we all want to have adult consent. I believe it is important to help guide a young person through such a decision. But when we look at some of the unintended consequences of these bills and the fine print of these bills, we find that they are going to have the opposite effect of what we want. Instead of helping the minor, it puts her at risk. We know some specific cases: A 12-year-old whose pediatrician discovered she was pregnant. It turned out the rapist was her stepfather and the mother wasn't living with the girl. The doctors recommended that her Aunt Vicki bring her to a specialist in a neighboring State. She was only 12 years old, the aunt said. It is bad enough to go through incest, but then to have a child from that incest. We should all agree that only the father should go to jail, not the caring relative, Aunt Vicki. I know it is very difficult to talk about this topic, but some very sick people do rape. Fathers do rape, uncles do rape and even impregnate their daughters. Look at these newspaper stories from around the country. ``An American Tragedy.'' This is from The Oregonian: A 13-year-old girl in Idaho whose father had impregnated her. . . . the morning she was supposed to have an abortion, her father, who admitted his guilt, walked into her room with a rifle . . . shot her in the head and then he shot himself. How does this bill prevent that? This bill will frighten a girl, make her more alone because she can't go to a caring adult because a caring adult could be sued by a parent. So she is scared. She gets in a car. She drives over the State line by herself. She is all alone. The father finds out, grabs her. She has no protection. He shoots her, shoots himself. What are we doing here? Why don't you look at what you are doing. Why don't you look at the practical impact of what you are doing? Here is another: ``Teen Accuses Father of Rape,'' The Journal News, Westchester County, NY. . . . man was arrested and charged with first degree rape of his teenage daughter. The man tried to force his daughter to take an unknown pill to cause a miscarriage because he believed she was pregnant. This happens too often. ``Father Sentenced for Raping Daughters,'' Newark Advocate: Man convicted of raping his two daughters. . . . the girls were 13 and 17 at the time of the crimes. ``Man Charged with Incest is Arrested in North Carolina'': Police said a father raped and impregnated his 16-year-old daughter and raped his step-daughter who is mentally and physically disabled. The way this bill has come to us from the committee protects the father. Senator Ensign and I are working hard--and I hope we can reach agreement--to solve the problems of this bill. But the way the bill passed the other body, they didn't pay any attention to this. Wonderful, we pass a bill that protects fathers who rape their daughter. It is basically a bill that, all of that incest aside, really will wind up in a young woman getting into a car on her own, frightened to death to tell her parents, and driving alone. ``Ordeal Ended/Dad's Arrest Ends Years of Rape for Teen,'' Newsday. For years, a convicted child sex offender used his Bronx home as a pornographic movie studio for sex videos of himself and his young daughter. The girl had tried at least once to alert someone--her mother . . . her mother took no action. ``Her mother took no action.'' As Senator Ensign and I try to reach an agreement on an incest amendment, let me be clear: We are not going to reach that mother. I, if I go along with this, am giving up a lot of my amendment. This is still an imperfect bill, and I will show you in a checklist my amendment versus the Ensign amendment and what we try to do in our amendment. The Ensign amendment, as was originally proposed--we support it-- stops a father who has raped his daughter from suing the trusted adult who helped his daughter end the resulting pregnancy. We applaud that amendment, and that amendment will hopefully be adopted. But we don't stop with that because the Ensign amendment doesn't go far enough. We want to stop a father who has raped his daughter from exercising any parental consent rights. We want to stop all criminal prosecution or jail time for a trusted adult who helps a victim of incest. Imagine under this bill a child goes running to a nextdoor neighbor whom she loves, a kind of an aunt to her, and she says: Please help me, please help me. I am pregnant. My father raped me. I can't go in that house. I can't tell my mother. My mother won't believe me. The nextdoor neighbor helps her. Under this bill the mother and the father can sue. We have to fix that. We are not going to fix it today. We can't reach all of what I am trying to do because I can't get agreement on the other side. It is still going to be an awful problem. We also stop a father who has raped his daughter, or any other family member who has committed incest against a minor, from transporting her across State lines to obtain an abortion. We don't want these perpetrators of incest to take their victims across the State line. We are working hard under the parameters of this bill to address the issue of incest. At the end of the day, if our negotiations go well, we will have taken care of two of the five Boxer provisions. Will I be happy that these three provisions are not taken care of? No. I am not happy. It is outrageous that we can't get it all done. So be it. Let the people judge. But we will do as much as we can to improve this bill. This bill as written protects the rights of brutal fathers. There are not many out there, but there are some. There is only one thing that we can do to make matters worse than parental consent: that is giving these sexual predators more power over their children to keep on perpetrating these acts and then saying they know how to handle it. They can handle it. Just take a child in the car and go. The bill as written actually forces some young incest victims to get permission from their rapist fathers to get an abortion. Can you imagine? We have to fix that. And it allows the predator fathers to take their daughters across State lines. We are trying hard to reach an agreement to take care of this problem. I am grateful that we may get two-fifths of the way there on my amendment. I will work hard if this bill becomes law to fix this bill. I will introduce legislation to fix this bill. I will also prepare legislation that goes further than this and says if someone is a victim of rape and they are fearful of telling their parents, that parent, adult, or grandma can't be sued. We really have a long way to go. This bill has many problems. It sends a message to young girls: Go it alone. Avoid all of this. Get in your car and go it alone. Don't take anyone with you. If you get in trouble at your moment of need, this bill says go it alone. She can go across the State line on her own. This bill doesn't do anything about it--only if she has a parent with her to help her. I believe this bill is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has been clear that abortion restrictions must not impose an undue burden on women, and they must include a health exception. There is no health exception in this bill. If a doctor takes a girl across State lines because he worries about her health, and if she doesn't get an abortion right away and faces paralysis or faces infertility, there is no exception in this bill. The doctor can be sued. What kind of message are we sending to young women? Go it alone. What kind of message are we sending to fathers who commit incest or mothers who turn a blind eye to it? Oh, don't worry. You are protected. Maybe Boxer will get two of her provisions, but we are not going to give you the five. I thought it was one nation under God, indivisible. I didn't think when we cross over State lines we are going to have the pregnancy police look in our cars. This is unconstitutional. You don't have to carry the laws of your own State on your back. If you go through another State and there is a speed limit that is different than the one you live in, you obey the laws of the State you are in. That is the law you carry on your back, not the State you left. No one could go gambling in Nevada if we said: If you live in Tennessee and no gambling is allowed, you can't go gamble in Nevada because you will be arrested by the police at the border. There are different criminal acts and different penalties in different States. Some have tough laws. We know that. States have rights. We find it interesting how someone only supports the States when they agree with them. But if they don't agree with that State's law, then they try to force another State's law onto the State with which they disagree. I don't know of any other law in history, with the exception of the Fugitive Slave Act, that has required citizens to carry the laws of their own State on their backs. That was back in the days of slavery. If you ran away to another State, you were still stolen property until the court said no. If you look at the constitutionality issue, if you look at the fact that victims of rape are left in deep trouble, as are victims of incest, if you look at the fact that good, kind, loving people like grandmas and grandfathers could go to jail for helping their granddaughter--no matter how you look at this bill, I believe you should come to the conclusion that this bill has major problems. Parental consent--you know something, Senator Ensign is right. People support the idea that a parent should be contacted by their child and talked to when a child has an unintended pregnancy. We want that so much. I want that so much. I also want kids to know they could talk to their grandma, they could talk to their grandpa, they could talk to their clergy, they could get help when they need it. I don't believe the American people support throwing grandma in jail because she embraced her granddaughter and said: My God, I am worried that your parents, your dad might hurt you if you tell the truth. She throws her arms around the granddaughter and protects her and helps her through a crisis. I believe stopping an abortion is worth preventing a teen from having a lifetime of paralysis, infertility, or worse, and yet there is no health exception in this bill. I think people want us to stop using this issue as a political football. I know who brought this up. It is brought up by the other side of the aisle every time we have an election. I hope we can join hands to stop teen pregnancies. We had a chance to do it. But no, we had a vote and we lost that vote. It is unreal. We got a couple of Republicans, but not enough. I hope the American people are watching this debate. If our goal is to help our young people--and that is the stated goal--there are a lot of ways we could help rather than scaring them to death and making them go it alone in a desperate situation, making criminals of their grandmas and their grandpas and their clergy. I am sad that the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Act didn't pass as part of this bill. It would have made this bill better. I am glad that we are going to have some coming together on the incest amendment, although as I said, it is only going to take care of two of the five problems we have relating to the bill. But at least we are making a bit of progress. The bill, to me, is blatantly unconstitutional. It violates our core principles of federalism. It puts caring adults in jail and endangers the health and lives of our most vulnerable teens. On that basis it ought to be defeated. I believe this bill will pass. I also believe our incest amendment will pass. I think that is important. We should have two votes on that. I think it is important to have those recorded votes so that the message goes to the House that their bill blatantly helps the predators. I call it the ``Incest Predators Protection Act.'' Thank you very much. I know my time is up. I yield the remainder of my time at this time.

Mrs. BOXER. I only need 30 seconds.

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

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, that time will be taken off my colleague's time.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I have a parliamentary inquiry. I ask that the quorum be suspended so I can make a parliamentary inquiry.

Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent and I would like to make a parliamentary inquiry.

Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mrs. BOXER. I want to go back to the Lautenberg-Menendez amendment. It is extraordinary to me; when we try to talk about common ground on the issue of pregnancy prevention, doesn't my colleague believe one area we ought to all come together on, regardless of whether we call ourselves pro-choice or anti-choice, would be preventing pregnancies among teens?

Mrs. BOXER. If my friend will further yield, is my friend aware there are 800,000 pregnancies among young women and that we could prevent these unwanted pregnancies and all of the attendant upset among families and that we had an opportunity to do that?

Mrs. BOXER. Here we had a chance to do something to prevent these unintended pregnancies. This bill focuses on a small number of cases. It seems to me by two votes we lost that vote. It is an issue, wouldn't my friend say?

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, again, for the benefit of our colleagues, we are waiting patiently to have the amendment we agreed on to come before us. Then we are hoping at the right time, Senator Ensign will make a unanimous consent request for a vote on an amendment we have agreed on, and then vote on final passage. So hopefully we will have that done very soon. As soon as it is done, I will yield the floor and allow the Senator, the good Senator from Nevada, to make his unanimous consent request. The Senator from Nevada wants to protect our daughters. He is a dad of a daughter. I am a mom of a daughter. I want to protect our daughters. So let's not get confused on this point. We all want to protect our daughters. We all adore them. We want them to be safe, and we want them to get the help they need. We want them healthy. We want them well. We do not want them afraid. But I do fear that this bill, the way it is drafted--and, yes, we are going to make a little bit of a correction on the incest part, but not as much as we should, but some--we are going to make some progress, and I am grateful for that. Basically, the way this bill is drafted, it is going to frighten our daughters because here is the way it works, folks: If you are a young woman in a parental notification State, you will take matters into your own hands because you are too frightened to go to your parents. Now, we all hope all parents will be open and loving and caring and helpful and will be able to be approached when a young woman becomes pregnant and it is an unintended pregnancy. We would hope and pray that family, that loving family, will sit around and talk about what ought to happen here, what is the best thing for everybody. I am pro-choice. I am for whatever the family decides. If they decide that the best thing is to raise that child in the family, that is their choice. If they decide it is best if the young woman exercises her right to choose, which is her right in this country--and has been since 1973--she has that right. That is what we hope happens, that there will be these conversations. Of course, my friends on the other side of the aisle do not want a choice. They want to force her to have the child. They are against Roe v. Wade, but that is another debate. That is a debate we take to the people, and that is a debate that the pro-choice people win. They do not want Senator Boxer or Senator Ensign involved in that family discussion, saying: But, no, you must have this child. You must not have any rights to choose. They do not want that. People do not feel comfortable with it. They want to deal with this their own way, with their own God, with their own family, with their loving family members. But that is not before us. What is before us is a very narrow bill that deals with a very narrow circumstance where there is a young woman who does not go to her parents, mostly because she is scared to death to go to them. For whatever reasons, in her mind, she is fearful: Will they--if she is from a violent home--beat her up? Will they hurt her? Will they verbally abuse her? Will they be disappointed? And that weighs on her. So what we are saying with this bill to that girl in a parental notification State is: You are alone. You can't go to anyone else. You can't go to your grandma who you adore, you can't go to your grandpa, you can't go to your big sister, you can't go to your Aunt Susan, you can't go to your clergy who has taken care of you and looked after you. So you can't go to your doctor. You can't do this because they could be sued and put in jail. That is what this bill does. Is that America? Rather than go to the people who she knows who adore her, love her, care about her, would counsel her, would help her and, perhaps, by the way, talk her into speaking to her parents or going with her to speak to her parents, this bill says: Go it alone, get in your car, get in an airplane, don't take anyone with you, don't tell anyone else, because that person can be sued and, worse, put in jail. These are our kids. My God, what a situation. And somehow this is supposed to be a wonderful thing we are doing, a family-values thing we are doing. I don't think you can force families into these situations. We don't know enough to be able to do that. There will be unintended consequences. We will have suicides. We will have very serious problems. As we wait around here in these last moments of this debate--and I am hopeful we can bring it to a close--let me say again that I thank Senator Ensign for coming my way, not quite halfway, on the issue of incest. Because the bill as written allowed a father who raped his daughter to have all kinds of parental rights: the right to sign an agreement that she could have an abortion, the right to take her over State lines, the right to sue a loving and caring adult who helped her. I wish to show this chart which I have shown previously. Under this amendment we are hoping is coming to us momentarily, we will stop a father who has raped his daughter from suing the trusted adult who helped his daughter end the resulting pregnancy. So in the case of incest, if the child goes to grandma, the incestuous father cannot sue grandma. Then, at the end, Senator Ensign was not willing to take these three provisions which I will debate. He did take my last provision. We now stop a father who has raped his daughter or any other family member who has committed incest against a minor from transporting her across State lines to obtain an abortion. That would be a crime. The three things that are not done, which is why I think this amendment falls short: we haven't stopped a father who has raped his daughter from exercising parental consent rights; we haven't stopped all criminal prosecution or jail time for a trusted adult who helped a victim of incest; and we haven't stopped all civil suits against a trusted adult who helped a victim of incest. But we have taken care of two issues. For that I am grateful because this bill will become law. It will be sent to the President, who will sign it. Unlike his veto on the stem cell bill, which he should have signed, because that bill would help our families, help our children with juvenile diabetes, help grandmas and grandpas with Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, help our youngsters who were paralyzed--he vetoed that. He will sign this one. This is a political bill. It did come to us in 1998 just before the election. Let's face facts. We know when it came. My friend from Nevada is right when he says people support parental notification. They do want to believe we could all to go our parents with these problems. But let me tell you what they don't want. They don't want to give incest predators any rights whatsoever. They would want to make an exception in this bill for rape victims so that if you are a victim of rape and you were too scared to tell your parents, you could go to your grandmother, but not under this bill. A victim of rape, you are too scared to tell your parents because of the circumstances--maybe it was date rape, maybe you just can't explain it. Maybe you are frightened to death. You go to your grandma. She could be sued by the parents and she could be put in jail by the Federal Government. Send your grandma to jail. That is what we are doing here today. Why? Because she loved her granddaughter, because she was there for her granddaughter, and because by stepping in, she may have really saved a tragedy from occurring. I don't believe the American people want us to be this radical. I think they would have wanted us to do more exceptions to this bill. Seventy percent of the American people oppose abortion laws that put people in jail. I don't believe Americans think that stopping an abortion is worth causing a teen a lifetime of paralysis, infertility, or worse. This bill, if it does get signed into law, and I say it will, and unless it is overturned by the courts, which I think it might be, but if it isn't, it basically will put these young women in a situation where they feel the world is closing in on them. That is not right. I will close my debate and urge a ``yes'' vote on the Boxer-Ensign amendment that will go part way toward solving the predator incest issue. Then I would urge a ``no'' vote on the underlying bill because of all the problems it creates that we have not been able to address. I thank the staffs on both sides. We have had a long and difficult day, emotional issues for us all. Yet we have handled it in such a way that I am hopeful that momentarily we will have a unanimous consent request to resolve the procedures governing the rest of the evening. I yield back my time and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. BOXER. I thank Senator Ensign. I had an amendment to solve this incest predator problem. He came to me almost halfway. We didn't quite get there, but it is a start. Again, for the benefit of my colleagues, two out of five provisions I wanted are in this amendment. This amendment stops a father who has raped his daughter from suing the trusted adult who helped his daughter end the resulting pregnancy, and it stops a father who has raped his daughter or any other family member who has committed incest against a minor from transporting her across State lines. This is an improvement. The reason we want to have a vote on it is because we hope it is a strong statement going into the conference on this bill. Again, we still need to fix many more provisions of this bill. I believe, at the end of the day, it doesn't make our teenagers any safer. It will make them fearful. It will make them feel alone. I think the bill is unconstitutional. I hope we have some ``no'' votes to send a message that this bill needs a lot more work. I thank Senator Ensign and his staff and my staff. It has been a tough day. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Since my colleague has spoken for 10 or 15 minutes----

Mrs. BOXER. I would like to have 5 minutes to respond. I thought we were going to start the debate after the luncheons. Upon his conclusion, perhaps in the next minute or so, may I have a few minutes to open?

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Nevada. I rise to speak as a mother and a grandmother--a mother of a daughter and a son, a grandmother of a grandson, and a Senator who has been here now for three terms, and I served over in the House for many years--to say that my friend from Nevada is right that this is not a parental consent bill at all. Some States have parental consent laws, some don't. In my particular State, it has been voted down because my people feel that if you ask them do they want their kids to come to their parents, absolutely. But if you ask them should you force them to do so, even in circumstances where there could be trouble that comes from that, they say no. I respect those States that have parental consent laws, and perhaps we will have a law that is drafted in California that the voters will approve. So far, we have not seen that. It is true it is not a partisan issue. When we voted down those laws, we did it regardless of political party. But the reason is unintended consequences in the way certain bills are drafted. I want to speak to that because I believe this bill is well-intentioned. This bill emanates from a desire that our children come to us when we have family matters, when our children are in trouble, that they not be fearful, that they not be afraid that they disappoint us, that they be open with us and loving toward us, and we toward them. This is what we want to have happen. The question is: Can Big Brother Federal Government force this on our families? That is where we will differ. I have to tell you, as I look at this bill coming before us now, I have to ask the question: why are my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who run this place, who run the House, who run the White House, putting so much effort into this bill, having killed stem cell research, which all of our families are desperate to have--talk about 80 percent of America, it is 90 percent who want to find cures to Alzheimer's and all the rest. Oh, no, instead of getting another chance to pass that bill and convince the President, who is now backing off a little bit in his rhetoric, to sign a stem cell research bill, or to prevent teen pregnancies, which is so important, we don't have that. We have this bill that impacts very few people. Instead of improving the health of women and girls, we are spending precious time on a bill that, in essence, protects incest predators. This bill, as it is written, protects fathers who commit incest. Can you imagine? It allows them to drive their daughter across State lines. Unbelievable. We are going to try to fix this problem with an amendment. I hope my colleagues will support that, and it will improve this bill. Right now, imagine, a father retains parental rights if he has committed rape on his daughter. This is supposed to be a warm and fuzzy bill? I don't think so. It also throws grandmothers in jail.

Mrs. BOXER. When I am finished. This bill, as it is drafted, will throw a grandmother in jail. Say the father committed incest on the daughter and she is hysterical. The first place she goes is not some judge but to her grandma, who she adores and who gives her unconditional love, or to her priest or rabbi, and says please help me out of this. That incestuous father, as the bill is written, can sue that caring adult who takes her over the line. My friend is going to offer an amendment that goes part of the way on the incest provision. It will say the father cannot sue. I am so happy because I will join him in that. I hope we have a 100-to-0 vote. But I am shocked that we cannot reach agreement on that. Talk about finding common ground. Even with the Ensign amendment that says a father cannot sue, he can still take the daughter across State lines. And the Federal Government can still sue the grandmother or the clergy. This debate is just beginning. The Senator from Nevada and I are friends, but we will have a tough debate. I hope we will vote for the Democratic amendment to improve this bill. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I rise to pay tribute to 45 young Americans who have been killed in Iraq since April 6. This brings to 595 the number of soldiers who were either from California or based in California who have been killed while serving our country in Iraq. This represents 23 percent of all U.S. deaths in Iraq. LCpl Juana Navarro Arellano, 24, died April 8 from wounds received while supporting combat operations in the Al Anbar province of Iraq. She was assigned to the 9th Engineer Support Battalion, 3rd Marine Logistics Group, III Marine Expeditionary Force, Okinawa, Japan. She was from Ceres, CA. Cpl Richard P. Waller, 22, died April 7 from wounds received while conducting combat operations in the Al Anbar province of Iraq. He was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA. LCpl Eric A. Palmisano, 27, died April 2 after the truck he was riding in rolled over in a flash flood near Al Asad, Iraq. Palmisano was listed as Duty Status--Whereabouts Unknown until his body was recovered April 11. He was assigned to 1st Transportation Support Battalion, 1st Marine Logistics Group, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA. Cpl Joseph A. Blanco, 25, died of injuries sustained in Taji, Iraq on April 11 when an improvised explosive device detonated near his Bradley Fighting Vehicle and he subsequently came under small arms fire during combat operations. He was assigned to the 7th Squadron, 10th Cavalry Regiment, 1st Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, Fort Hood, TX. He was from Bloomington, CA. LCpl Marcus S. Glimpse, 22, died April 12 as the result of an improvised explosive device while conducting combat operations in the Al Anbar province of Iraq. He was assigned to 1st Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA. He was from Huntington Beach, CA. LCpl Philip J. Martini, 24, died April 8 of a gunshot wound while conducting combat operations in the Al Anbar Province of Iraq. He was assigned to 1st Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA. Cpl Salem Bachar, 20, was killed due to enemy action in the Al Anbar Province of Iraq on April 13. He was assigned to Headquarters Battalion, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA. He was from Chula Vista, CA. LCpl Stephen J. Perez, 22, was killed due to enemy action in Al Anbar Province, Iraq on April 13. He was assigned to 1st Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA. Petty Officer 3rd Class Marcques J. Nettles, 22, died April 2 when the truck he was riding in rolled over in a flash flood near Al Asad, Iraq. He was previously listed as Duty Status--Whereabouts Unknown. His body was recovered April 16. He was assigned to 1st Combat Logistics Battalion, 1st Marine Logistics Group, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA. Sgt Kyle A. Colnot, 23, died of injuries sustained in Baghdad, Iraq on April 22 when an improvised explosive device detonated near his vehicle causing a fire. He was assigned to the 1st Squadron, 67th Armored Battalion, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, Fort Hood, TX. He was from Arcadia, CA. LCpl Aaron W. Simons, 20, died April 24 while conducting combat operations against enemy forces in the Al Anbar province of Iraq. He was assigned to 1st Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Twentynine Palms, CA. He was from Modesto, CA. Pfc Raymond L. Henry, 21, died on April 25, in Mosul, Iraq, when an improvised explosive device detonated near his vehicle during combat operations. He was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 17th Infantry Regiment, 172nd Stryker Brigade Combat Team, Fort Wainwright, AK. He was from Anaheim, CA. LCpl Michael L. Ford, 19, died April 26 while conducting combat operations against enemy forces in the Al Anbar province of Iraq. He was assigned to the 1st Tank Battalion, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Twentynine Palms, CA. Cpl Brandon M. Hardy, 25, died April 28 while conducting combat operations against enemy forces in the Al Anbar province of Iraq. He was assigned to 3rd Assault Amphibian Battalion, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA. Sgt Lea R. Mills, 21, died April 28 while conducting combat operations against enemy forces in the Al Anbar province of Iraq. He was assigned to 3rd Assault Amphibian Battalion, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA. Sgt Edward G. Davis III, 31, died April 28 while conducting combat operations against enemy forces in the Al Anbar province of Iraq. He was assigned to 3rd Assault Amphibian Battalion, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA. LCpl Robert L. Moscillo, 21, died May 1 while conducting combat operations against enemy forces in the Al Anbar province of Iraq. He was assigned to the 1st Combat Engineer Battalion, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA. Sgt Elisha R. Parker, 21, died May 4 while conducting combat operations against enemy forces in the Al Anbar province of Iraq. He was assigned to the 1st Combat Engineer Battalion, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA. Pfc Benjamin T. Zieske, 20, died of injuries sustained in Kirkuk, Iraq on May 3 when an improvised explosive device detonated during a dismounted combat patrol. He was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 327th Infantry Regiment, 1st Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), Fort Campbell, KY. He was from Concord, CA. LCpl Leon B. Deraps, 19, died May 6 while conducting combat operations against enemy forces in the Al Anbar province of Iraq. He was assigned to the 7th Engineer Support Battalion, 1st Marine Logistics Group, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA. LCpl Benito A. Ramirez, 21, died May 21 while conducting combat operations against enemy forces in the Al Anbar province of Iraq. He was assigned to 3rd Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA. LCpl Robert G. Posivio III, 22, died May 23 while conducting combat operations against enemy forces in the Al Anbar province of Iraq. He was assigned to 1st Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA. Pfc Steven W. Freund, 20, died May 23 while conducting combat operations against enemy forces in the Al Anbar province of Iraq. He was assigned to 1st Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA. Cpt Nathanael J. Doring, 31, died May 30 following a nonhostile helicopter accident near Al Taqaddum, Iraq, on May 27. He was assigned to Marine Light/Attack Helicopter Squadron-169, Marine Aircraft Group- 39, 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA. Cpl Richard A. Bennett, 25, died May 30 following a nonhostile helicopter accident near Al Taqaddum, Iraq, on May 27. He was assigned to Marine Light/Attack Helicopter Squadron-169, Marine Aircraft Group- 39, 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA. Cpl Ryan J. Cummings, 22, died June 3 from wounds received while conducting combat operations in the Al Anbar province of Iraq. He was assigned to 1st Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA. Spc Issac S. Lawson, 35, died in Baghdad, Iraq, on June 5 of injuries sustained when an improvised explosive device detonated near his vehicle during combat operations. He was assigned to the National Guard's 49th Military Police Brigade, Fairfield, CA. He was from Sacramento, CA. Spc Luis D. Santos, 20, died on June 8 in Buhritz, Iraq, when an improvised explosive device detonated near his military vehicle. He was assigned to Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 1st Battalion, 68th Armor Regiment, 4th Infantry Division, Fort Carson, CO. He was from Rialto, CA. Hospitalman Zachary Mathew Alday, 22, was killed on June 9 while conducting combat operations against the enemy in the Al Anbar Province of Iraq. He was assigned to 7th Marines, Regimental Combat Team 7, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Twentynine Palms, CA. LCpl Brent B. Zoucha, 19, died June 9 of wounds received while conducting combat operations in the Al Anbar province of Iraq. He was assigned to 1st Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Twentynine Palms, CA. LCpl Salvador Guerrero, 21, died June 9 of wounds received while conducting combat operations in the Al Anbar province of Iraq. He was assigned to 1st Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Twentynine Palms, CA. He was from Los Angeles, CA. Cpl Michael A. Estrella, 20, died June 14 while conducting combat operations in the Al Anbar province of Iraq. He was assigned to 3rd Battalion, 3rd Marine Regiment, 3rd Marine Division, III Marine Expeditionary Force, Marine Corps Base Kaneohe Bay, Hawaii. He was from Hemet, CA. Cpl Christopher D. Leon, 20, died June 20 from wounds received while conducting combat operations in the Al Anbar province of Iraq. He was assigned to 5th Air Naval Gunfire Liaison Company, III Marine Expeditionary Force, Okinawa, Japan. He was from Lancaster, CA. SSgt Benjamin D. Williams, 30, died June 20 while conducting combat operations in the Al Anbar province of Iraq. He was assigned to 1st Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA. Pfc Christopher N. White, 23, died June 20 while conducting combat operations in the Al Anbar province of Iraq. He was assigned to 1st Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA. LCpl Brandon J. Webb, 20, died June 20 while conducting combat operations in the Al Anbar province of Iraq. He was assigned to 1st Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA. Sgt Jason J. Buzzard, 31, died on June 21 in Baghdad, Iraq, when an improvised explosive device detonated near his military vehicle. He was assigned to E Company, 2nd Battalion, 8th Infantry Regiment, 4th Infantry Division, Fort Hood, TX. He was from Constantinople, CA. Cpl Jason W. Morrow, 27, died June 27 from wounds received while conducting combat operations in the Al Anbar province of Iraq, on June 26. He was assigned to 3rd Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA. He was from Riverside, CA. Pfc Rex A. Page, 21, died June 28 from wounds received while conducting combat operations in the Al Anbar province of Iraq. He was assigned to 3rd Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA. Spc Christopher D. Rose, 21, died on June 29 of injuries sustained from an improvised explosive device during combat operations in Baghdad, Iraq. He was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 67th Armored Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, Fort Hood, TX. He was from San Francisco, CA. Cpl Ryan J. Clark, 19, died on June 29 at Brooke Army Medical Center, San Antonio, TX. He died of injuries sustained on June 17, in Ar Ramadi, Iraq, when an improvised explosive device detonated near his military vehicle. He was assigned to C Company, 40th Engineer Battalion, 1st Armored Division, Baumholder, Germany. He was from Lancaster, CA. Sgt Thomas B. Turner, Jr., 31, died on July 14 at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, Landstuhl, Germany. He died of injuries sustained on July 13, in Muqdadiyah, Iraq, when multiple improvised explosive devices detonated near his military vehicle. He was assigned to the 1st Squadron, 32nd Cavalry Regiment, 101st Airborne Division, Fort Campbell, Kentucky. He was from Cottonwood, CA. Sgt Andres J. Contreras, 23, died on July 15 of injuries sustained when his vehicle encountered an improvised explosive device in Baghdad, Iraq during combat operations. He was assigned to the 519th Military Police Battalion, 1st Combat Support Brigade, Fort Polk, LA. He was from Huntington Park, CA. SSgt Jason M. Evey, 29, died on July 16 of injuries sustained when his Bradley Fighting Vehicle encountered an improvised explosive device during combat operations in Baghdad, Iraq. He was assigned to the 1st Squadron, 10th Calvary Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, Fort Hood, TX. He was from Stockton, CA. Spc Manuel J. Holguin, 21, died on July 15 in Baghdad, Iraq, of injuries sustained when his dismounted patrol encountered an improvised explosive device and small arms fire. He was assigned to Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 2nd Battalion, 6th Infantry Regiment, 1st Armored Division, Baumholder, Germany. He was from Woodlake, CA. I also pay tribute to the three soldiers from or based in California who have died while serving our country in Operation Enduring Freedom since April 6. Spc Justin L. O'Donohoe, 27, died east of Abad, Afghanistan, in the Kunar province, on May 5, when his CH-47 Chinook helicopter crashed during combat operations. He was assigned to the 71st Cavalry Regiment, 10th Mountain Division, Light Infantry, Fort Drum, NY. He was from San Diego, CA. Sgt Bryan A. Brewster, 24, died east of Abad, Afghanistan, in the Kunar province, on May 5 when his CH-47 Chinook helicopter crashed during combat operations. He was assigned to the 3rd Battalion, 10th Aviation Regiment, 10th Mountain Division, Light Infantry, Fort Drum, NY. He was from Fontana, CA. Cpl Bernard P. Corpuz, 28, died in Ghanzi, Afghanistan, on June 11 from wounds sustained when his convoy came under enemy small arms fire and an improvised explosive device detonated during combat operations. He was assigned to the 303rd Military Intelligence Battalion, 504th Military Intelligence Brigade, Fort Hood, TX. He was from Watsonville, CA.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Then we have the people of Washington, DC. They are not represented with a vote. That is wrong. Over 500,000 people live in this great city, the heart and soul of our democracy. Eighty percent are voting age. They can't cast their ballots in national elections for congressional representatives. They don't have Senators or Representatives here. That is why I have joined Senator Joe Lieberman on his bill that calls for full voting rights for DC residents. So, again, I say what a privilege and honor it is for me to be here, to stand here, thinking back to my days as a child when African Americans had to go to the back of the bus in some parts of the South, feeling the pain of that myself for those who had to live in that way. So this bill is a fitting tribute to Rosa Parks and Fannie Lou Hamer and Coretta Scott King. I thank the Presiding Officer for his indulgence. This is a starting place for a lot of us, and we are going to make sure that, in fact, the right to vote is a reality for every single one of our citizens. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, before Senator Kerry leaves the floor, I want to thank him. The issues he raised absolutely have to be a part of this debate. I will address them after he leaves. The reason I stood up and objected to the Ohio count is because I knew firsthand from the people of Ohio who came and talked with me through Stephanie Tubbs Jones that they were waiting in lines for 6, 7 hours. That is not the right to vote. I think Senator Kerry's remarks and the remarks of the Senator from Oregon are very important. So let a message go out from this Senate floor today that we are not stopping our efforts to make sure people can vote with the very important passage of this very important legislation. I am very pleased to follow him in this debate. I rise to cast my vote in support of a very historic bill named after three amazing women whom I truly admire--Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King. These three legendary women were part of the heart and soul of the civil rights movement in this country, and those women helped move the conscience of this Nation in the 1960s and, frankly, inspired me to serve in public service. In 1950, I was a little girl and I was in Florida with my mother. I went on a bus. It was a crowded time of day. A woman came on the bus. Her hands were filled with packages. To me she looked really old. I guess she was my age. I jumped up because I was taught to do that. I jumped up and I said: Please, please, take my seat. My mother kind of pulled at my sleeve, and the woman put her head down and she walked to the back of the bus. I was perplexed by this. I said to my mother: Why was she rude to me? Why didn't she say thank you and take the seat? My mother explained to me the laws in those days that sent African Americans to the back of the bus. I at 10 years old was astounded, shocked, angry. My mother said to me: Why don't we just stand up. And that is what we did. We walked to the back, and we stood. That was an America that is no more, but that is an America we cannot forget. That was an overt law to hurt people, to make America ``we and them.'' That is why the law we are passing today is so important-- because it says that we all recognize that even though that America is no more, we have more work to do. And then came the sixties. Of course, we know it was Rosa Parks who changed the world with that one act of defiance of hers, where she just went on that bus and she wasn't going to the back. When I met her, when President Clinton invited her to the White House and I went there, I stood in awe because it said to me how one person can make a difference in this, the greatest nation in the world. We get so frustrated sometimes; we feel we can't make a difference. Here is one woman saying, No, I won't do that; that's wrong; I'm one of God's children. And that act of defiance changed our country. I am so happy this bill is named after her and Fannie Lou Hamer who helped organize Freedom Summer in 1965 which helped lead to passage of this landmark bill we will vote on today. She had a very simple phrase that she used: ``Nobody's free until everybody's free.'' ``Nobody's free until everybody's free.'' That reminds us of the work that we certainly have to do today. So Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King, who worked with her great husband during the civil rights movement in the sixties and carried on his work after his horrific assassination, working for justice, worked for equality not only in this country but around the world. In the late eighties, she worked tirelessly to help bring an end to apartheid in South Africa. I often quote Martin Luther King, almost in every speech I give, because he is one of my heroes. One of the lines he said, which isn't really one that gets quoted all the time, is that ``Our lives begin to end when we stop talking about things that matter.'' ``Our lives begin to end when we stop talking about things that matter.'' That touched me and reached me. I think his words, of course, reached every American, regardless of political party. Don't stop talking about things that matter, even though it might be easier to do so, even though it might be easier when you are at a friend's house and somebody says something that is bigoted toward somebody else. It is sometimes easier for us to make believe we didn't hear it. No, that matters, you matter, your view matters, your values matter. Speak up. That is what we are doing, and I am proud to be in the Senate today because we are doing something good today. It is a privilege and an honor to vote for this reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act. I had a number of people visit me from my State yesterday--old and young, children, grandmothers, great grandmothers, granddads, lawyers, workers, doctors. They just jammed into my conference room and they said: Senator Boxer, we know you are with us. We know you have been on this bill. We know where you are. We have listened to you all these years. We wanted to come here and say thank you. I said: You don't need to thank me. What you need to do is join with me so that after this vote, we truly get equal voting rights in this country. That was touched on by Senator Kerry, and it was touched on by Senator Wyden. The right to vote--without it we are nothing. Without it, we are not standing up for the principles upon which this Nation was founded: a government of, by, and for the people. How do you have a government of, by, and for the people, if the people turn away from the voting booth? I hear every excuse in the world: Oh, you are all the same. What is the difference. I can't make a difference. It is just false. It is just an excuse. Show me two candidates running against each other at a local level, at a State level, at a Federal level, and I will show you the differences. If you pay attention, you will find out the differences, and you will cast your vote for the candidate that most represents you. You are not going to agree with them 100 percent of the time. That is another issue: Oh, I used to agree with him, but he did three things, and I don't agree with him anymore. Look at the totality. Look at the totality of the voting record. Look at the totality of the opposition and make a decision. Don't just walk away. Don't pull the covers over your head with excuses: They are all alike. I can't make a difference. What is one vote? We all know the election of John Kennedy was decided by a couple of votes per precinct. It could have been one vote per precinct. That is how close that election was. In the voting booth, we are all equal. In the voting booth, we are all equal. Your vote and my vote, whether you are 18 years old or you are my age and a Senator, we are all equal in the voting booth. We have one vote. We should cherish it. The CEO of a giant company who earns multimillions of dollars a year is equal to a minimum wage worker. And if that minimum wage worker thinks it is time he got a raise or she got a raise after almost 10 years of not getting a raise, he or she ought to vote, and vote for the candidate who supports your right to join the middle class. Every citizen of this country who is eligible to vote should be guaranteed that their vote is counted and that their vote matters. That is why it is so important that we maintain the protections of this historic Voting Rights Act, such as requiring certain localities with a history of discrimination to get approval from the Federal Government before they make changes to voting procedures. Why is this important? It is important because it is a check and balance on an area that has in the past not shown--not shown--the willingness to fight for every voter. And, requiring certain jurisdictions to provide language assistance to voters with limited English proficiency, and authorizing the Federal Government to send election monitors to jurisdictions where there is a history of attempts to intimidate minority voters at the polls, we just want to make sure these elections are fair, wherever they are held. The Federal Government must work hard to guarantee that the inequities we have seen in the past never resurface again. And won't that be the day, when we have a system that we believe we can be proud of again. I am proud to stand here today with an opportunity to cast a vote to reauthorize provisions of the Voting Rights Act. But today didn't come without struggle. Why did my people have to come all the way from California, spend their hard-earned dollars to get on a plane? I will tell you why: Because this was a hard bill to get before this body. People objected. People complained. It was a hard bill to get before the House. But many people worked hard, and House Members listened to the people, and Senators listened to the people. I want to thank my friends at the NAACP who were finally able to convince enough that, yes, this was something we had to do. We have to be honest. There were attempts to weaken this bill, but we succeeded in not allowing that to happen. In my closing moments, I want to say that our work does not stop today, as Senator Kerry said and as Senator Wyden said. For example, several of us have introduced the Count Every Vote Act, a comprehensive voting reform bill that will ensure that every American indeed can vote, and every vote is counted. Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones, who lived through a harrowing experience during the last election, with her constituents being given the runaround and standing in line for 6 and 7 hours. Is that the right to vote, standing in line for 6 and 7 hours, people who have to work, people who had health problems, people who couldn't stand up, people whose legs were weakening beneath them? Is that the right to vote? I say it is not the right to vote. I say it is harassment. Senators Clinton, Kerry, Lautenberg, Mikulski, and I have introduced the Count Every Vote Act, and I want to highlight the two key provisions that are in this bill. The first is the bill would require electronic voting machines provide a paper record which will allow voters to verify their votes, and it will serve as a record if a manual recount is needed. We go to a restaurant, we get a receipt. We go to the store, we get a receipt. We save it in case there is a problem. When we vote, we should get a receipt. We should look at it, we should check it, just as we add up the bill from the restaurant. We should give it back and then it is stored. In case there is a problem, we have a paper trail. The second provision: We say election day should be a Federal holiday. We all give speeches. We stand up and we stand behind the red, white, and blue. What a great, free country this is, and indeed it is. Why shouldn't we make election day a holiday so that we can celebrate on every election day our freedoms, our history, our rights, our protections as citizens to choose our own leaders? Let me say, we cannot even get to page 1 in terms of moving this bill forward. There is resistance to this bill. There are those in this body who don't want a paper trail. They don't want to make it easier to vote, and let's call it what it is. That resistance exists, and that is wrong. So I call on the leadership of this body: Let's do something more for people. Let's not have another situation where a Senator has to go over and protest a vote count because people said they had to stand in line for hours.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank my chairman, Chairman Inhofe, for granting me this time. I feel so strongly against this amendment. I really need the time to explain to my good colleagues why I think it ought to be voted down. We have amendments before us from time to time and they come to us as reform. I totally understand that we need reform in this whole area of the way we prioritize projects that come before us. But I don't believe this is reform at all. In my view, I think this is a delegation of the responsibility of the Senate and the House over to the executive branch. I believe it is going to be put into the hands of people who won't know a thing about this subject matter, and it is going to bring politics right into this Chamber. We were elected by the people. The cities and counties count on us to do our homework, to do our due diligence and understand what the needs are of our people, what our flood control needs are in our States, what our other needs are in our States, the studies that need to be performed, and all of that. That is our job. The McCain amendment just simply wraps it all up and tosses it over to the executive branch. It sets up a whole new bureaucracy that I think is absolutely unnecessary and, frankly, I think it is disastrous for this WRDA bill. Unlike the other amendment which we supported, which is peer review, that looked forward, this amendment looks back into this bill where we have sat for years and years. Again, I thank Senators Inhofe, Jeffords, Bond, and Baucus and the leaders of this committee who have worked with us to ferret out the projects that didn't have merit. I can attest to the fact that I had an amendment that I wanted to move forward. I was persuaded by my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that there was a better way to move forward. We have done our work. This amendment is well intended. I know that. I know the people who have put it forward to us have good intentions. But I think it is going to make it more difficult for worthy projects to get needed funding. That includes projects that have an impact on public health and safety. I may have a debate with Senator Bond over which project I think is the more worthy and we will sit and talk about it and we will argue about it. At the end of the day, there will be a decision. Why should the two of us toss that all over to the executive branch, no matter who is President? What does it have to do with them? It is our bill. The President has the right to veto it if he doesn't like it or sign it. But thrashing out what ought to be in it and what is good, we have done that. That is part of our job. There is another problem with this amendment. It sets up a nightmare of a tier system. You have to fight your way into a tier in order to be funded. The administration--this one and the next one and the one thereafter--will be able to recommend which tier your State projects ought to be in. When the first tier reaches $5 billion, or when there are 100 projects in it, that tier is finished. So if you have a very important project, a large project, but let's say we all know we have to move to help the folks who are impacted by Hurricane Katrina, and they have priority--we all agree that it has a very high priority--if you represent a large State, you have a large project, you will never make it into the first tier. It is bad for my State. Frankly, it is bad for any project that is large enough and can't get into the first tier--it gets knocked down. You get stuck in a lower tier simply because the project may protect more people. How does that make any sense whatsoever? It is an arbitrary system. It can label a project as second tier despite critical local public safety needs. It will undermine a project's chances of receiving appropriations. We already know what a fight we have to convince our colleagues in the Committee on Appropriations that the projects in our State have merit. We subject these projects to tremendous scrutiny, first in this particular WRDA bill. As we struggle to get appropriations funds, we have to make the case. Then we have to go to conference and continue to make the case. Under this amendment, I am sorry to say this is no reform. I ask rhetorically if this makes any sense. There is a very important committee that has been set up in the underlying bill. The committee has some very important functions, but now the McCain amendment adds this next function on to this committee, this coordinating committee which, by the way, is going to hire an executive director. If anyone wants to learn how projects and laws get bogged down, here is an example. This committee that is going to be set up includes the following people: The Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Secretary of Housing and Development, the Secretary of Transportation, the Secretary of Energy, the Secretary of Commerce, the Administrator of the EPA, the chairperson of the Council on Environmental Quality, and here is my favorite, the Secretary of Homeland Security. We all know about their priority list. We just took a look at their priority list. Petting zoos should be protected before bridges and highways. They have included Old McDonald's Petting Zoo, a bourbon festival, a bean festival, the Kangaroo Conservation Center. This is what the Department of Homeland Security said ought to be prioritized. Do we want to invite them into a new prioritization game for the WRDA projects? I hope not. What could come out of this is not good. In discussing this with my colleagues, they say: But, Senator Boxer, they are just going to recommend. We have the ability to sit down among ourselves--Democrats and Republicans--as we have done in this bill, and come to some decisions on what the priorities are. I believe the Committee on Appropriations, working with all of us, has a second bite at that apple. I don't believe we need to ask this President or any future President to get into this issue and convene meetings, have studies, and waste money just to put together a list that they say is their priorities. What makes their priorities better than our priorities? They are not even elected. This is not even their job. How do you come forward--I ask my friend from Arizona, rhetorically, because he is not here-- giving people who have no idea what this is about the power over the projects? They say it is just a recommendation, but we know they will take that seriously. We remember the whole tizzy when they said they thought it was fine for the country of Dubai to run our ports. There was a big debate in the Senate. Most Members believed that was a mistake. That also came out of some committee. We all fight to get here. We all work hard to get here. At a minimum, we are in touch with our States and we know the needs of our States. The Congress, not a political appointee, not some bureaucrat, but Members of the Senate should retain the central responsibility for establishing the border resource priorities for their States. Instead, this amendment leaves the recommendation of priorities up to a committee made up of Cabinet and other political appointees. We are inviting politics into this debate. As Senator Inhofe said, this is one of those rare moments in history, this bill, where politics is left at the committee door. We worked together. We worked hard together. Now, with this McCain amendment, we are injecting partisan politics. In this case it is a Republican President. In future years it could be a Democratic President. It does not make any difference. We should do our job. We should not punt the ball elsewhere. What are we here for? Anyone who votes for this, and I am sure there will be a few--I hope not too many--the message they are basically sending is that they do not feel comfortable enough, they do not feel knowledgeable enough, they do not feel strong enough to stand up for what needs to be done in their States. Again, I ask, do we really want to have the Department of Homeland Security deciding the critical water resource projects? They have enough to do to get their own priorities in order. With all due respect to members of the Cabinet, we as individual Senators know our States' needs. We know our States' priorities. This is not reform; this is injecting, in my view, partisanship into a very bipartisan approach. I trust my colleagues, whether Republican or Democrat, in this bill because they have to explain why their projects are worthy. This is not like an earmark where something is stuck in the bill in the middle of the night. This is a major reauthorization bill where every project is looked at very carefully. I don't believe any Cabinet is going to be more effective at telling us what projects should be funded. As Members of Congress, let us not surrender our responsibility to an executive branch that, in my view, will not reflect the real needs of our people. I urge my colleagues to vote no, a very sound no, on this amendment. Let's send a message today that this Senate knows what it is doing in this bill. I feel very comfortable with the leadership of Senators Inhofe and Jeffords, that we do know what we are doing in this bill. If you are for this bill, I hope you will vote no on the McCain amendment. I give the remainder of my time to the good Senator, Mr. Inhofe. I thank him so much for the chance to speak against this amendment.