Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank Senator Feingold for his leadership. I also thank Senator McCain. They have two amendments before us, the next one coming shortly. I enthusiastically support this amendment. I think this one is very much a reform. I strongly oppose the other one. But I am not going to use my time now to talk about the second amendment because I do want to concentrate on what an important step forward this particular amendment is. The 2005 hurricane season taught us many valuable lessons--lessons that we will never forget because we saw them with our very own eyes. And one of the most important lessons is that major water resources projects and especially flood control projects must be carefully reviewed to be sure they will be effective. What a disaster it is for our taxpayers to spend millions and billions on these projects, only to learn that they were not designed well or they didn't meet the real threat that was posed by Mother Nature or that there was cronyism dealing with putting together the alternatives. I believe this amendment will put independent and expert eyes on the data, on the science, and on the engineering of our major public works projects. We need these independent and expert eyes because so much is at stake. I come from a State that has every kind of natural disaster imaginable. The people there are very good at pointing out what the problems are, and we have to be equally as good in responding to these needs and making sure we give them quality, that we give them the protection they deserve. In this amendment, we are giving the people what they deserve. When a review is triggered under this proposal, a panel of experts, of engineers and hydrologists to biologists and economists, must look at the underlying technical data and look at the project in its whole and make sure that the project will meet and achieve its goals. There is little point in expending hard-earned taxpayers' dollars unless we know it is being spent right. What this particular amendment does is bring in those outside experts to kind of give a seal of approval on what we are doing. Again, I don't go along with the next amendment, and I will be back to talk about that, but this amendment does what needs to be done. The panel will make recommendations to improve the project. This particular amendment is common sense, pure and simple. Complex and costly engineering projects deserve the additional scrutiny. Mistakes do happen. You know what. Mistakes will happen no matter how many panels we have, but the idea is to cut down on those mistakes. We are all human. We all make mistakes, but how much better is it to get a very seasoned pair of eyes to take a look at what we are doing. I believe this amendment will make these projects safer, and they will make them more effective. I support the Army Corps of Engineers' mission. When I first got into politics in local government, I worked very closely with the Corps on many flood control projects. We have had our arguments, we have had our debates, but over the years, we have managed to work well together. But there were moments during those debates when I knew I could benefit from outside experts, and that is what we are giving to the Congress and, therefore, to the American people. We are going to have additional scrutiny, and we are going to make sure that mistakes are rare. When we talk about mistakes, it is one thing to make a mistake on an issue that doesn't put lives at risk, but we are talking about the protection of life and limb for our people. I think this amendment will help the Corps do its job better. It will improve public faith in the work of the Corps because, frankly, after Katrina, many people are saying to me: Can we trust these public works projects, these flood control projects to really protect us? They have doubts, and they should have doubts, having seen what they saw. I, again, thank Senators Feingold and McCain for their leadership on this particular amendment, and I urge a ``yes'' vote. I know it is going to be a close vote, but I really do believe people listening to this debate will see that all we are saying in support of this amendment is we are bringing in outside experts to keep an eye on taxpayers' dollars and keep an eye on these designs to make sure that when we fund a public works project, we have done everything in our power to make sure it is designed well, that it will be cost-effective, and it will be safe.

Mrs. BOXER. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mrs. BOXER. Can you do a unanimous consent request?

Mrs. BOXER. We are done. I hope now we can voice vote this amendment.

Mrs. BOXER. For 20 minutes.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I was pleased to yield time to Senator Stabenow who had a very pressing matter regarding some of her constituents who are stuck in Lebanon with no way out, and a very vulnerable time for many of the families in her district and in her State. Let me start out by saying thank you to my chairman, Senator Inhofe, and to our ranking member, Senator Jeffords, and, of course, Senators Bond and Baucus, and the array of Senators who have worked so hard on this very bipartisan bill. We have all worked together, and I believe it is an excellent bill. I thank the staffs for their commitment to this product, particularly Let Mon Lee with Senator Bond, Angie Giancarlo and Stephen Aaron with Senator Inhofe, and Catharine Ransom and Jo-Ellen Darcy with Senator Jeffords. They put in very long hours, many of them, to help all of us, and for that I thank them. All together, this bill represents the collective work of nearly 6 long years. That is how long it has taken to get this water resources bill to the Senate. I think we all agree that 6 years is far too long to wait for a bill that authorizes essential flood control, navigation, and ecosystem restoration projects, projects that help protect thousands of homes and the lives of millions from catastrophic flooding; projects that help restore the great wetlands and the rivers of our Nation. What we learned during Katrina is what happens when we lose the wetlands in our country, and we have been losing them. As a result of that, we lose the natural flood protection that we so desperately need. So restoring the great wetlands we have lost in California--I think it is about 90 percent of our wetlands, and nationwide I think it is even more than that. So we really have lost a great deal of our wetlands, and this bill helps to correct that. It protects the rivers of our Nation, also very important and is addressed here. We have projects that help increase our port capacity and projects that make shipping easier and safer. Specifically, for my State of California, there are many great and valuable provisions in this bill, essential flood control provisions that more than double the amount of current funds authorized to improve and upgrade levees in the San Joaquin River Delta, levees that will help protect two-thirds of California's water supply. I remind my colleagues--I know you are aware of this--we have almost 37 million people in my State. So when we talk about flood control protecting the population, we are talking about quite a sizable population. We have included ecosystem restoration pilot projects to help improve and restore the Salton Sea, which has been steadily shrinking into the deserts of southern California. The Salton Sea is a remarkable-- remarkable--body of water. The bill also includes authorization to restore vast salt marshes and wetlands around the Napa River. I want to highlight one final provision in this bill for California. Earlier this year, I introduced the Los Angeles River Revitalization Act. When I tell my colleagues that there was a river in Los Angeles-- there still is--they look at me and say: Well, where is this river? Well, you can take it from me, there is a river. It has been destroyed over time. The local people, with a wonderful project, are trying to restore this river and continue to protect the residents of the area from flooding, but also to provide recreational opportunities for the communities on the riverbanks. The 2006 WRDA bill before us contains key provisions from that bill, including a feasibility study and provisions authorizing demonstration projects to help get this great restoration effort going. If you have time to come with me to Los Angeles, I say to my colleagues, I will show you the amazing possibilities we have for recreation and for the young people in an area that is in great need, desperate need of recreation, because it is so populated and so crowded. So in short, Mr. President, this is a great and important bill for my State. We cannot ignore our water infrastructure. We learned that from Hurricane Katrina. We cannot allow long periods of time to elapse without reauthorizing such a vital and important bill. Most of our colleagues agree, earlier this year, more than 80 Senators signed a letter requesting full Senate consideration of this bill. I have worked with colleagues on both sides of the aisle, particularly Senators Inhofe and Jeffords, in trying to address every colleague's concerns so that we could get to this moment, and here we are. I look forward to discussing and debating several key policy issues relating to this bill. We have a couple of controversial ones, and I will be on the Senate floor as these issues come before us. Amendment No. 4679

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, at this time, I call up my amendment No. 4679, which is at the desk.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I offer this amendment on Sacramento flood control at the Folsom Dam, and I want to speak on behalf of my amendment. My statement will be brief because I am very pleased that my amendment has been cleared on both sides of the aisle. Again, I thank Senators Inhofe and Jeffords and their staffs. We will be voice-voting this amendment, and it means a great deal to Senator Feinstein and to me and the people from California, be they Republicans or Democrats or Independents. I again extend my thanks to Letmon Lee with Senator Bond, Angie Giancarlo and Stephen Aaron, Catherine Ransom and Jo-Ellen Darcy. I am saying their names again because I think all too often staff just don't get the credit they deserve for the long hours they put in. Their work on this amendment, like so many others in this bill, has been invaluable. I thank Senator Feinstein for being a cosponsor of this amendment. I offer my appreciation for her help in this effort. Very briefly, I want to talk about why this amendment is so important, and then we will have a voice vote and we can move on to Senator Specter's amendment. Sacramento is one of America's largest metropolitan areas that has less than 100-year flood protection, less than 100-year flood control protection. The Sacramento-American Rivers floodplain contains 165,000 homes--I want my colleagues to think about that--nearly 500,000 residents, the State Capitol is there, and many businesses providing 200,000 jobs. It is also the hub of the six-county regional economy, providing hundreds of thousands of jobs. A major flood would cripple the Sacramento region's economy, significantly impair the operations of our government in Sacramento, and cause up to $15 billion in direct damage and up to $30 billion in total economic losses, and it would likely result in significant loss of life. As the capital of the world's sixth largest economy--the world's sixth largest economy--no one can deny it is important to protect the Sacramento region and, fortunately, no one today is denying that. Yet Sacramento is terribly vulnerable to catastrophic flooding, so vulnerable that parts of the Sacramento area were under serious flood threat earlier this year. I remember well, when Senator Feinstein and I came to the floor and we showed you the pictures. We are not going to go through those again tonight because I think you remember those pictures. There was that whole area where you have homes below sea level at risk every single day. To protect this region from flooding, Folsom Dam was completed in 1956. It is located 15 miles northeast of Sacramento on the American River. To improve the dam's flood control capabilities, Congress authorized two projects to increase the dam's capacity and waterflow control. Over the past year, the Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation have been working to refine and improve these plans. My amendment ensures that this important process continues expeditiously and without interruption. This is what it does. It sets a strict timeframe of June 2007 for the Corps and the Bureau to complete their report, so that design work can proceed without delay. We all know bureaucracy. They will figure out one way to delay and another way to delay, and before long we have real serious questions of the costs for the project and having to pay more for the project. We pray during that time there will not be a catastrophic flood. We are so pleased that this amendment has been signed off on, on both sides. It also calls for quarterly reports on the progress of the Bureau of Reclamation and the Corps. The bill as agreed to by the managers of the bill today is an important next step to provide the region of Sacramento the level of flood protection it deserves. The Corps, the Bureau, and their non- Federal partners are continuing to work on designing the best solution for Folsom Dam, and the outlook is very promising. As S. 728 moves to conference with the other body, I intend to work with my colleagues in any way needed to support this project. Again, I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for agreeing with this important amendment, and I hope the day will soon come when we will have that report ready for you and move forward. I ask unanimous consent that all of my time and the time of Senator Stabenow be charged against my amendment. I think that will clear up the time confusion with the Chair. Is that correct? Mr. Chairman, is that making you happy?

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise in support of this long overdue legislation to expand stem cell research. When this issue first came up with President Bush in 2001, he had a choice between helping scientists conduct lifesaving research or putting politics before science. To the detriment of the millions of Americans suffering from diseases and conditions for which there is no cure, the President chose politics and decided that Federal funds could only be used for research on existing stem cell lines. At the time, there were 78 existing stem cell lines--only 22 of which were usable. Scientists agreed that this was nowhere near enough to fulfill the promise that stem cell research provides. To make matters worse, scientists at the University of California San Diego and the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla conducted an extensive study showing that even those lines are contaminated by mouse feeder cells--and unsuitable for human therapies. So the President's policy--painted as a compromise at the time--left scientists with little to no chance to advance their research. At least 10 countries have made significant financial commitments to stem cell research. Our commitment is less than one quarter of Australia's. Our country's failure to lead on this is having significant consequences. Here is one example: After the President's announcement in 2001, Roger Pedersen, one of the world's leading stem cell researchers, announced that he was leaving his faculty position at the University of California San Francisco for one at the University of Cambridge. He saw a promising future for stem cell research in the United Kingdom, yet saw none in the United States. We need to change this. I am proud to say that California recognized that our Federal policy was unacceptable. The State has enacted the Nation's first law to permit research involving human embryonic and adult stem cells while facilitating the voluntary donation of embryos for stem cell research. Now how did this happen in California? It started with one man and one family. Roman Reed was 19 years old when he broke his neck in a college football game and became paralyzed. Roman's parents led a campaign in 2002 to pass legislation to invest in spinal cord injury research. Then, in November 2004, Californians passed Proposition 71, which provides $3 billion in State funding over 10 years for embryonic stem cell research. Unfortunately for Roman and his family, legal challenges have stalled these funds, and with them, stalled their hope for a brighter future. More States are considering their own initiatives, but these State efforts simply can't supplant the resources and expertise that would result from research supported by this administration and the National Institute of Health. Today, after years of struggling to pass this legislation, we have an opportunity to offer hope to thousands of Americans and put America back on the cutting edge of science. We know we can make a difference when we give our scientists the tools and support to do their work. Because of our national commitment to scientific achievement and through NIH-supported research, death rates for heart disease and sudden infant death syndrome have been nearly cut in half in the past several years. The number of AIDS-related deaths fell 70 percent between 1995 and 2001. HIV/AIDS has become a disease that more people live with and fewer die from. And as a result of critical research at the National Cancer Institute at NIH, the survival rate for children with cancer rose by 80 percent in the 1990s. The current Federal policy has been a roadblock to progress. This bill will put us back on the right track. Some in this body have been telling the American public that stem cell research is morally wrong. But we have taken every step to address their concerns in this bill. This legislation would only allow Federal funding of research on stem cell lines derived from excess fertilized embryos that were never actually used in couples' in vitro fertilization processes. Right now, these embryos are being discarded, and we are losing hundreds or even thousands of valuable new stem cell lines. I believe it is wrong to have those embryonic stem cell lines go to waste when we could instead offer hope to Americans suffering from devastating medical conditions. We have a moral imperative to try to relieve their pain. That is why we have seen a broad coalition of people across political lines that support this research. One example is former First Lady Nancy Reagan. She took a stand that was based on compassion and not politics. For many years, she cared for President Reagan. She inspired millions of Americans with her quiet courage and dignity. She knows that this research holds the best hope for the 4.5 million people who, like her late husband, suffer from Alzheimer's. She knows that supporting stem cell research would save many lives. Our beloved Christopher Reeve--who we all know was paralyzed from a riding accident--supported and actively campaigned for this research because he knew that those 250,000 to 400,000 people with spinal cord injuries potentially could be treated. How many of us have ever seen a colleague, friend, or family member suffering from a terrible disease like Parkinson's? Where the sufferers and their families struggle with debilitating physical deterioration, ever-changing medications with terrible side effects and the knowledge that the patient's condition will continue to decline--often fatally? How many of us have met with constituents and patient advocate groups--like the ALS Association, the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society--that share their stories of courage and great hope for the passage of this legislation? Stem cell research has the potential for finding cures to diseases like Parkinson's, ALS, diabetes, and cancer, and has the great potential to reduce suffering. We should fulfill that potential and pass this important legislation now. I hope that Senators support H.R. 810 because we can change the current policy and open the door to major advances in medical science through stem cell research. President Bush has said that he will veto this legislation if it reaches his desk. I ask him to reconsider this unwise decision. The lives of millions of Americans are in his hands.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I will take less than a minute to thank both sides. Can the Senator help me? This is my able assistant.

Mrs. BOXER. I have never had such a fantastic, underpaid, assistant in my life. I will take a minute to explain why I am very delighted that Senators Gregg and Murray have signed off on this amendment we are about to adopt. Senator Schumer has worked very hard on this issue. Here is what we say. We say the inspector general did an investigation and found out that on the out-of-place assets list--these are assets that the Department of Homeland Security will protect--were places such as the Nestle Purina Pet Food plant, the Sweetwater Flea Market, petting zoo, the beach at the end of a street, the Pepper and Herb Company, Auto Shop, groundhog zoo, high stakes bingo, mule day parade. We wish we could protect every activity in America, but I think when you are looking at a budget that is limited, we should go after the targets that al-Qaida has told us--the bridges, the highways, the infrastructure, the chemical plants, the nuclear plants. We do not have to spend taxpayer money protecting the bourbon festival, as an example. The point is, we are going to ask the Department to either accept the recommendations of the inspector general or tell us why not. That is the essence of the amendment. I thank my colleagues. I don't know if I need to ask for the yeas and nays.

Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with. The amendment is as follows (Purpose: To prohibit the use of certain funds for travel by officers or employees of the Department of Homeland Security until the Under Secretary for Preparedness has implemented the recommendations in the report by the Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security titled ``Progress in Developing the National Asset Database'', dated June 2006) On page 90, line 24, before the period, insert the following: ``: Provided further, That none of the funds made available in this title under the heading ``Management and Administration'' may be used for travel by an officer or employee of the Department of Homeland Security until the Under Secretary for Preparedness has implemented the recommendations in the report by the Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security titled `Progress in Developing the National Asset Database', dated June 2006; or until the Under Secretary for Preparedness submits a report to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate and the Committee on Homeland Security and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives explaining why such recommendations have not been fully implemented.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I oppose the proposed U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement. This agreement is not fair to American workers, plain and simple. The theory behind free trade agreements is that two nations will agree to the free flow of goods as long as there is a relatively even playing field in terms of labor and environmental standards. Without that even playing field, we face a worldwide ``race to the bottom,'' where the nations that pay their workers the least and offer them the fewest rights and protections, wins. Sadly, the Bush administration has entered this particular race with gusto. The Sultanate of Oman does not have much of a track record on worker's rights. There is no right to form independent unions or bargain collectively. The Omani constitution and labor laws do not prohibit the use of forced labor for public services and child labor is still permitted in law and practice. The country of Oman has only 3 million people--and half a million of them are foreign ``guest workers,'' mainly from Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and other Asian countries. And there have been numerous reports about how guest workers in that region have been exploited and underpaid, enabling their employers to turn out extremely low-cost products. Unfortunately the trade agreement we are considering today offers no guarantees that Oman will not treat its ``guestworkers'' in the same way, and then be able to sell the products of their labor, duty free, to U.S. companies. And we are asking American workers to compete against that? That's not free trade, defined as a mutually beneficial arrangement between two nations that raises living standards and general prosperity for the citizens of both countries. That's merely pitting American workers against the poorest, most desperate workers in the world, who work as foreign contract workers and have few legal or institutional protections. I cannot support that approach to free trade. I proudly join with 400-plus labor, environmental, religious, human rights, consumer, business and family farm organizations, to oppose the U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize an exceptional group of students with disabilities in southern California from Hesperia Junior High School. Kattie Greene, Emilee Landon, David Perez, and Eric Coldwell have achieved outstanding success in science and problem solving. These students formed the Hands-Off Telephone Band Team. Together, they developed an apparatus that allows a cellular telephone to be mounted to a wrist or arm--creating an effective and simple assistive technology device that enables some individuals with disabilities to independently use a cellular phone. The Hands-Off Telephone Band Team's ingenious creation was chosen as one of eight projects from nationwide to be judged by the renowned Christopher Columbus Foundation, which, along with the National Science Foundation, strive to improve America's middle school students' literacy in mathematics and science. Despite facing formidable competition, the Hands-Off Telephone Band Team's project was deservedly selected as the Gold Medal Award Winning Team. Kattie, Emilee, David, and Eric's commitment to excellence, coupled with their mastery of the scientific process, enabled them to return to Hesperia Junior High School as heroes of the community. I commend these students not only for their success in this prestigious competition but also because they are the first team comprised of students with disabilities to win this national competition. Each of these incredible young people utilized their abilities and coordinated their efforts to succeed. Eighth grade instructor Barbara Jacobs deserves commendation on her successful mentorship of these young students. I applaud the dedication of the Hands-Off Telephone Band Team from Hesperia Junior High School. Their success has provided an example of determination to us all.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank Senator Clinton. I am also very proud to be on the floor of this great body with my Democratic women Senate colleagues. We held a press conference in which we challenged the Republican leadership to bring up issues on this floor that are meaningful to our families. Here is our checklist for change. Each of us has taken one of these issues. Mine happens to be protecting our air, land, and water. The message we are here today to convey is that the Republicans run the Senate, the White House, and the House of Representatives. They control what issues come to the floor of the Congress for debate. We spent yesterday debating an amendment to the Constitution to ban flag burning. We also debated a bipartisan proposal by Senators Bennett and Clinton to ban flag burning via a statute. Every one of us in this body voted to ban flag burning, be it by a statute or by an amendment. But one has to ask the question: Is that debate, which we have had four times, more important than the issues that are on our checklist for change? There have been four reports of flag burnings this year. That is four too many, but they were four. Yet there are 44 million Americans whose pensions are at risk while this Congress fails to act to protect those pensions. Four flags burned versus 7.5 million Americans who have been denied an increase in the minimum wage. And this Congress, under the Republicans, sees nothing wrong with giving themselves a pay raise, but they can't raise the minimum wage, and it has been flat for 9 years, which means it has gone down in value and people cannot make it on $5.15 an hour. Four flags have been burned--four too many--versus 170,000 talented college-ready students each year who stay home because they can't afford tuition. Four flags burned--four too many--yet 30,000-plus veterans have waited in 2006 for their first medical appointment, an issue that will be taken up by Senator Murray. Four flags burned versus 200,000 people in New Orleans living in trailers, unfinished houses, or tents in the front yards of their Katrina-ravaged homes. Four flags burned this year--four too many--versus $2.89 a gallon for regular gas. By the way, that is the national price. In California, we are looking at well over $3 a gallon. Four flags burned--four too many--versus 46 million Americans with no health insurance, and Senator Lincoln will talk about that. Four flags burned--four too many--versus over 500,000 Americans who have lost their lives while we wait for this Republican Congress to take action on stem cell legislation, an issue that has been championed by many of us in this Senate and on this checklist carried by Senator Feinstein. And, finally, four flags burned--four too many--versus 75 million Americans living near our most polluted toxic waste Superfund sites. In conclusion, because my checkpoint is protect our air, land, and water, I call on this Republican Congress to address two pressing environmental crises: global warming and Superfund cleanup. It is easy to put global warming on the back burner as long as our everyday lives are not affected, but some people think their everyday lives are beginning to be affected. The best scientists in the world warn us that we are near the tipping point on global warming. Just the other day, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, along with the national academy of science for 10 other nations, agreed that climate change is real and it has to be addressed. So we call on this Republican Congress to do something about it. Don't sit back and say this doesn't exist because you are ignoring science. I am proud to say that in the State of California, they are listening. This week a historic global warming bill cleared the first hurdle and passed the California Senate Environmental Quality Committee. California has been a leader in the environment, and Senator Feinstein and I want to make sure that we can bring some of that action right here to the Senate. Last point: We need to clean up these Superfund sites that are hurting our families and hurting our communities. Under the Clinton administration, we cleaned up 80 of these sites a year. Now it is down to 40 sites a year. We owe our children a clean and healthy environment. Mr. President, it is time for you and the Members of the Republican Congress to call on the Republican leadership to take up our checklist for change. We are very proud to be talking about this all together this morning on the Senate floor. I am proud to yield now for Senator Patty Murray of Washington.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Secure Nuclear Facilities Act of 2006, which addresses an unacceptable gap in our Nation's homeland security. My bill would hold commercial nuclear powerplants to the same high security standards to which government nuclear facilities are subject. There are currently 104 nuclear powerplants licensed to operate in the United States, including two plants, with two reactors each, in my home state of California. These plants are potential targets for terrorists, and we are not doing enough to ensure they are protected. The 9/11 Commission report, issued on July 22, 2004, stated that nuclear powerplants were among the targets considered in the original plan for the September 11, 2001, attacks. An attack on a nuclear plant would be disastrous. The meltdown of a nuclear powerplant's nuclear reactor core, release of the spent nuclear fuel located at the site, removal from the site of radioactive materials, or other violation of the plant's security would greatly endanger public health and safety. Unfortunately, there are reports of nuclear plant operators' failure to effectively address vital security issues, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's failure to hold them sufficiently accountable. To make matters worse, commercial nuclear plant operators are not currently required to defend their plants against theft and diversion of nuclear material. Nonweapon nuclear facilities operated by the government, on the other hand, are required to defend against not only direct attacks, but also theft and diversion of nuclear material. This double standard makes no sense. Commercial nuclear plants contain materials that terrorists might attempt to steal, just like government nuclear facilities. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NRC, concedes that terrorists might use these highly radioactive materials in a radiological bomb or, with the right equipment, reprocess it into weapons-grade material. But according to the NRC, it is not reasonable to expect a private facility to cope with this threat, because private facilities do not have the same resources as government facilities. The NRC's argument is deeply flawed. If nuclear plant owners and operators cannot address the full spectrum of terrorist threats they face, then they should not be in business. There is too much at stake in terms of the dangers posed by these threats for us to allow continued low security standards for commercial nuclear plants. My bill would require commercial nuclear plants to defend against the same potential threats as government nuclear facilities, including threat and diversion of nuclear materials. The bill would also strengthen State and local responders' ability to aid nuclear plants in case of an attack by terrorists. It offers grants to State and local responders to facilitate evacuations and medical treatment, as well as interoperable communications among first responders and plant operators. The Secure Nuclear Facilities Act of 2006 would make our country safer by ensuring better security at commercial nuclear plants. I urge my colleagues to support this important bill.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Secure Nuclear Facilities Act of 2006, which addresses an unacceptable gap in our Nation's homeland security. My bill would hold commercial nuclear powerplants to the same high security standards to which government nuclear facilities are subject. There are currently 104 nuclear powerplants licensed to operate in the United States, including two plants, with two reactors each, in my home state of California. These plants are potential targets for terrorists, and we are not doing enough to ensure they are protected. The 9/11 Commission report, issued on July 22, 2004, stated that nuclear powerplants were among the targets considered in the original plan for the September 11, 2001, attacks. An attack on a nuclear plant would be disastrous. The meltdown of a nuclear powerplant's nuclear reactor core, release of the spent nuclear fuel located at the site, removal from the site of radioactive materials, or other violation of the plant's security would greatly endanger public health and safety. Unfortunately, there are reports of nuclear plant operators' failure to effectively address vital security issues, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's failure to hold them sufficiently accountable. To make matters worse, commercial nuclear plant operators are not currently required to defend their plants against theft and diversion of nuclear material. Nonweapon nuclear facilities operated by the government, on the other hand, are required to defend against not only direct attacks, but also theft and diversion of nuclear material. This double standard makes no sense. Commercial nuclear plants contain materials that terrorists might attempt to steal, just like government nuclear facilities. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NRC, concedes that terrorists might use these highly radioactive materials in a radiological bomb or, with the right equipment, reprocess it into weapons-grade material. But according to the NRC, it is not reasonable to expect a private facility to cope with this threat, because private facilities do not have the same resources as government facilities. The NRC's argument is deeply flawed. If nuclear plant owners and operators cannot address the full spectrum of terrorist threats they face, then they should not be in business. There is too much at stake in terms of the dangers posed by these threats for us to allow continued low security standards for commercial nuclear plants. My bill would require commercial nuclear plants to defend against the same potential threats as government nuclear facilities, including threat and diversion of nuclear materials. The bill would also strengthen State and local responders' ability to aid nuclear plants in case of an attack by terrorists. It offers grants to State and local responders to facilitate evacuations and medical treatment, as well as interoperable communications among first responders and plant operators. The Secure Nuclear Facilities Act of 2006 would make our country safer by ensuring better security at commercial nuclear plants. I urge my colleagues to support this important bill.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I would like to make a statement explaining my vote. I wonder if that is in order at this time.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I had tried to get time earlier in the day. Unfortunately, I was tied up in a markup. I want to express myself briefly on the constitutional amendment. I opposed it, even though clearly it was far more popular in the country to support it. I did so because of my love of our country, our Constitution, and our freedoms. The love of country runs deep in my veins, as I know it does in those of every Senator. My family came here in the early years of the 20th century to be safe from the Holocaust in Europe, the nightmare that took the lives of our relatives and so many innocent people. To my family and to me, America was not only a land of strength and courage but a land of compassion and acceptance. My father, who was a CPA, always said to me: Kiss the ground when you pay your taxes to America because you are helping to build our military, our schools, our roads, and our infrastructure. My mother said that being an American meant being free to live your dreams, and only in this country, she would say, in America, where she was brought as a baby by her family, would that be possible. I was taught not to be afraid of disagreement, not to fear words and not to shrink from an argument in this, the greatest country on Earth. In a great country like the United States of America, you don't fear dissent. In a great country you allow dissent, even if it is ugly, even if it makes you sick to your stomach, even if it disgusts you. We are so strong as a Nation that we know if someone takes one of our beautiful symbols and destroys it or burns it or spits on it or steps on it, that person will not win respect but will lose it. That person will not win friends but in fact will turn people away. That person will gain nothing for his cause but, in fact, will be ridiculed and marginalized. Now if a flag is burned or if a copy of the Bill of Rights or a copy of the Constitution is burned and that act is meant to incite others and it places people in danger, we should have laws to punish those who would endanger other lives. That is why I was proud to support the Bennett-Clinton-Durbin amendment, to do just that. I can certainly understand how seeing our flag burn would inflame passions and incite outrage. It does so in me. The flag to me is a symbol of something I hold near and dear to my heart--our democracy, our country, our history. And I am outraged when I think about someone treating the flag in a disrespectful manner. But I am also outraged when I see or hear about a group of people protesting at the funeral of a fallen soldier, saying things like ``thank God for dead soldiers'' or ``God is America's terrorist.'' That is what is going on today at soldiers' funerals. Such despicable speech and disrupting the most sacred funerals of our heroes makes no sense to me, and I can't begin to imagine the emotions of the families of the soldiers who must endure these senseless protests at a time of such loss. My instinct is to haul these protesters away. My colleague, Senator Durbin, proposed an amendment that would prohibit these awful protests at all funerals for our fallen heroes, regardless of where the funerals take place, whether at a national or private cemetery, a funeral home or a house of worship. I was proud to support that amendment, and I was stunned to see how many of my colleagues turned away from it. I agree with the approach of Senator Durbin to the protests-- proposing a statutory solution to address a problem rather than unnecessarily amending our Constitution. There are many things in life that we find offensive, repugnant to beliefs that we hold dear, but we cannot amend the Constitution every time there is something we consider outrageous, offensive, or repugnant. We have only amended our Constitution 16 times after the Bill of Rights was passed in 1791--16 times over 214 years. But the Republican leadership has decided the best use of our precious little working time is to amend the Constitution--not amend it to guarantee equal rights for women, which still has not been done, not to amend it to allow limits on wealthy individuals buying Federal office--but for an issue which I believe we can address by statute, as I believe Senators Bennett and Clinton and Durbin did. Some have suggested that this constitutional amendment is necessary to honor our veterans. I think Senator Specter spoke eloquently on the point. I say, if we want to honor our veterans we should take care of our brave men and women in uniform who serve our Nation. For example, just last week my good friend from Maine, Senator Snowe, and I were able to get an amendment agreed to by the Senate which would make all prisoners of war who die in captivity eligible for the Purple Heart. Also last week Senator Lieberman and I were able to get an amendment agreed to by the Senate improving the mental health screening and monitoring for members of our Armed Forces. I think we honor our veterans and Armed Forces when we make sure that we are looking out for them, keeping our promises to them. Right now we are not. We should provide them with all the equipment they need while they are deployed and all the health care they need when they come home. Let's make sure our men and women have adequate body armor. Let's find ways to expand health care coverage for the members of the Guard and Reserves. Let's make sure the Veterans Administration is adequately funded to meet the needs of our veterans at a time when we are seeing horrific post-traumatic stress: suicides are up, divorces are up. These are the ways we honor our veterans. We love the flag--yes. We love our veterans--yes. But I think we can do both without having to amend the Constitution. I believe the flag is a beautiful symbol of the freedom and liberty on which this proud Nation has been built. The flag is a reminder of the democracy we all hold so dear in our hearts. When I see the flag displayed in an inappropriate way--I think Senator Lautenberg showed it--on underwear or on pajamas, I don't think that is respectful. But that is what we see every day. I don't like it, but, you know what, this Constitution is more than an outlet for our justifiable frustrations. This Constitution is more than just an outlet for our justifiable frustrations. It is concise. It has worked. It is the enduring ideal of our Nation, and we should not unnecessarily amend it. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I would like to take a few minutes to discuss an amendment that I understand Mr. Warner and Mr. Levin have included in the managers' package. I would like to begin by thanking Senators Warner and Levin and their staffs for working so hard with us to get this done. I would also like to thank my colleague Senator Lieberman for working diligently with me to draft this legislation. He really is a true champion for our men and women in uniform. This amendment addresses an issue that is vitally important to many of my colleagues here in the Senate--improving mental health screening and services for our brave men and women serving in our armed services. As we all know, our soldiers, marines, airmen, and sailors have been bogged down in an extremely dangerous and increasingly destructive war in Iraq for more than 3 years, and the pressure is taking its toll. Multiple deployments, the insurgency, and the unprecedented urban combat that many of our service members face is resulting in high levels of mental illness, including PTSD--a disorder that, if left untreated, can cripple a person for life. Tragically, many of our service members are not being adequately screened and treated for these conditions. Let me give you an example from last month's Hartford Courant, which ran an extended series of articles detailing the failures of our military health care system. Nine months ago, 27-year-old SSG Bryce Syverson was on suicide watch and taking antidepressants in the psychiatric unit at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. Doctors had diagnosed him with PTSD and depression, which they attributed to his 15-month tour in Iraq as a gunner on a Bradley tank. Today, Staff Sergeant Syverson is back in the combat zone as part of a quick reaction force in Kuwait that could be summoned to Iraq at any time. He got his deployment orders after being told he wasn't fit for duty. He got his gun back after being told he was too unstable to carry a weapon. In a recent e-mai1 to his parents and brothers, Sergeant Syverson wrote: ``Nearly died on a PT test out here on a nice and really mild night because of the medication that I am taking. Head about to explode from the blood swelling inside, the [lightening] storm that happened in my head, the blurred vision, confusion, dizziness and a whole lot more. Not the best feeling in the entire world to have after being here for two days. . . . And I ask myself what . . . am I doing here?'' I ask my colleagues, do this make any sense? In the Hartford Courant's May 17 piece entitled ``Still Suffering, But Redeployed,'' COL Elspeth Ritchie, a psychiatry consultant to the Army surgeon general, acknowledged that the decision to deploy soldiers with PTSD is a matter that the Army is currently wresting with. I would like to quote Colonel Ritchie, because I think that something she said is particularly telling: ``historically, we have not wanted to send soldiers or anybody with post-traumatic stress disorder back into what traumatized them. . . . The challenge for us . . . is that the Army has a mission to fight.'' I appreciate that the military--particularly the Army--is facing severe manpower needs, but the fact that we are knowingly sending U.S. service members back into the very situation that caused their trauma is utterly tragic. Tragic and unacceptable. The Boxer-Lieberman amendment would do some very important things to address this situation. First, it would improve mental health screening procedures for those about to be deployed. Currently, the military's pre-deployment mental health assessment is a single question on a form. The Boxer-Lieberman amendment requires an enhanced mental health screening process prior to deployment that would include: a mental health history of the servicemember; current mental health treatment or use of medications for a mental health disorder; an assessment of any behavior identified by the unit commander that might provided by the member, (through a checklist or other means,) of symptoms that might indicate a mental health condition. Second, the amendment mandates that soldiers determined to have symptoms of a mental health condition--either before deployment or after deployment--will be referred to a qualified health care professional with experience in the evaluation and diagnosis of mental health conditions. This is an area where we are really falling short-the Hartford Courant reports that military screeners have arranged mental health evaluations for fewer than one in 300 deploying troops. Third, the Boxer-Lieberman amendment mandates that any member of the Armed Forces who requests access to mental health care services, before, during, or after deployment to a combat zone, will be given access within 72 hours after making the request or as soon as possible. Fourth, the amendment directs the Department of Defense to develop clear and consistent guidelines and regulations on what mental health conditions and psychotropic drugs ought to prevent a servicemember from being deployed to a combat zone. It also requires the Department to develop guidelines for the deployability and treatment of service members diagnosed with severe mental illness or PTSD. And lastly, it will require the Department to develop a plan to monitor individuals deployed to a combat zone who are known to have a mental health condition or disorder or are known to be taking psychotropic medications. I think that these are small steps that we can take to ensure that our service members receive a higher standard of mental health services and care. I hope it will also prevent stories like the one I am about to tell you, again in the Hartford Courant, from happening again. Patricia Powers of Skiatook, OK wonders why her 20-year-old son Joshua was sent to Iraq barely six months after he enlisted in the Army. According to Ms. Powers, she ''just couldn't believe'' that the Army took her son in, as her son had Asperger's syndrome--a form of autism. People with Asperger syndrome tend to be highly intelligent, but they have trouble in social settings and are quite often loners who have difficulty building relationships. However, Asperger's was not the only neurological issue facing Joshua. In reading through the medical records of her son's frequent visits to the base doctor, Ms. Powers found that in every instance, the doctor had taken note of Joshua's severe depression. Three weeks after arriving in Iraq, Pvt. Powers left his barracks around midnight and walked to the latrine, where he ended his life with a gunshot to the head. In a recent GAG report, the GAG noted that the military has been reluctantto create uniform guidelines for deployment. In its recommendation, the GAG argued that guidelines are necessary ``so that in future deployments [the Defense Department] would not experience situations such as those that occurred with members being deployed into Iraq who clearly had pre-existing conditions that should have prevented their deployment.'' Situations like Joshua Power's Situations like Bryce Syverson's, where he was forced to ask his family: ``What am I doing here?'' Mr. President, the heroic men and women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan are doing a fantastic job. In Iraq, they have succeeded in every mission that has been asked of them, even the ones that have changed over time. In Afghanistan, they are relentlessly hunting for the man responsible for the deaths of over 3,000 Americans. But as the death toll continues to rise, so does strain. Ided today just two examples of soldiers who clearly indicated that deploying them to a combat zone would be a mistake. But we know that there are many more. What we are asking for in this amendment is simple: that the Pentagon does a better job of dealing with mental health matters for the men and women that it sends into harm's way. I don't think this is too much to ask. Again, I like to thank Senator Warner, Senator Levin, and Senator Lieberman for their support.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I would like to take a few minutes of the Senate's time to discuss an amendment that I understand Senator Warner and Senator Levin have included in the managers' package. This amendment--that I worked on with my colleague Senator Snowe-- would move toward expanding eligibility for the Purple Heart to all prisoners of war who die in captivity regardless of the cause of death. The need for this important amendment was brought to my attention by a group of Korean War veterans--the Tiger Survivors--who identified what many of my colleagues agree is a glaring loophole in current law. You may be surprised to learn that currently, only prisoners of war who die during their imprisonment of wounds inflicted by the enemy-- such as a gunshot wound or intentional poisoning--clearly meet the criteria for posthumous Purple Heart recognition. Those who die of starvation, disease, or other causes during captivity do not. I would like to give you an example of what I mean by recounting the story of the crew members who survived the sinking of the USS Houston, a Navy cruiser that was sunk by the Japanese off the coast of Java in February 1942. After swimming to shore, the Japanese transported American POWs to Burma to work as slave labor building the Burma-Thai Railway, which would stretch 250 miles between mountains, across rivers, and through jungles. These American POWs cut down trees, built road beds and bridges, and laid ties and rails for what is known as the Death Railway. Conditions for these Americans were appalling. Each man received half a cup of bug-infested rice a day, and some POWs dropped below 80 pounds. Malnutrition brought on diseases like beri beri, pellagra, and scurvy--severe vitamin deficiencies that result in horrible suffering and even death. The tropical environment also bred cases of dysentery, malaria, cholera, and tropical ulcers that ate through flesh to expose bone. Although Japanese doctors were present in the camps, they were not allowed any drugs or tools for practicing medicine. Those workers who were too slow were beaten; those who were too sick to work received no food, and were eventually sent off to die. Under current law, many of these individuals would not be eligible for the Purple Heart. Doesn't it make sense that our young service members who died in this manner would be recognized as having died at the hands of the enemy? Doesn't it make sense that the Houston crew members who were denied treatment and died of starvation and disease in captivity would be eligible for the Purple Heart? Language that would correct this injustice was accepted as part of the House version of the Defense authorization bill, where it had the overwhelming bipartisan support of 216 cosponsors. Equally important, correcting this important loophole in the law has been endorsed by the American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Military Order of the Purple Heart, the National Association for Uniformed Services, the Military Officers of America Association, the Korean War Veterans Association, National League of POW-MIA Families, Tiger Survivors, and a number of other prominent veterans organizations. I can think of no stronger endorsement than from these fine groups who know first-hand the suffering of war. I would like to tell you one more story by a World War II soldier by the name of John Coleman. This is his story as recounted in his book, Bataan and Beyond: The treatment of the death march and imprisonment . . . is beyond the imagination's ability to comprehend. If there ever was a hell on earth, this was administered to the 7,000 souls of some of the bravest and most devoted of our military personnel. Day after day they were in agony, seemingly blotted out in memory by their nation. They suffered under the burning tropical sun, on starvation rations, with little water to drink. They could not even wash the filth from their bodies or clothes, matted hair, and beards. They were mentally depressed, had swollen limbs from beri beri, unhealed festered wounds that were never treated. They also had distended stomachs, bloody dysentery, and raw, sore mouths from pellagra. Even a drink of water would cause their mouths to burn. Everyone had stomach worms that would sometimes find their way out of the body through the nose. No attempt was made by the Imperial Japanese Army to furnish any kind of medication to alleviate the suffering. Unimaginable. Simply unimaginable. Mr. President, these brave members of the Armed Forces suffered these cruelties so that we might enjoy the freedoms we have today. I can think of no more fitting tribute for their sacrifice than to posthumously make them eligible for the Purple Heart. While the amendment that I originally offered would have provided congressional authorization expanding eligibility for the Purple Heart, I worked with Senators Warner and Levin on compromise language that would require the President to determine whether eligibility for the Purple Heart should be expanded to all POW's who died in captivity. I sincerely hope the President will take a serious look at this proposal, and ensure that our POWs are afforded the recognition they deserve. Amendment No. 4371

Mrs. BOXER. This week, the military informed two California families that their sons were shot and killed by the very same Iraqi troops they were training. SGT Patrick McCaffrey and 1LT Andre Tyson were killed near Balad in 2004. At first, the Army told the families that these two National Guardsmen were killed by Iraqi insurgents. An investigation by the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command determined in September 2005 that both soldiers were shot and killed by members of the Iraqi security forces. In addition to the fact that Iraqi security forces are killing U.S. soldiers, this situation raises several troubling questions. First, according to his parents, there were two prior incidents in which Sergeant McCaffrey was fired upon by Iraqi security forces and the chain of command took no action. Why was nothing done? Are there other incidents where American troops are being shot at by the Iraqi forces they are training? Second, why did the Army close its investigation in September 2005 but fail to inform the family until June 2006? Was there a coverup of this incident? What other explanation could there be? Third, why were the families denied official government reports on the events that led to the deaths of these two soldiers? One of the families needed the help of my office to make any progress in learning the truth. How could the Army treat the families of dead soldiers in such a callous and dismissive way? Where are the military case officers who are supposed to help the families of slain U.S. soldiers? And, fourth, a Defense Department spokesmen has called this incident ``extremely rare.'' How can the Department of Defense conclude that the incident is rare when such incidents are evidently not being reported up the chain of command? Members of Sergeant McCaffrey's unit told his father that insurgents were offering Iraqi soldiers about $100 apiece for each American they could kill. I ask the Senator from Michigan, is he willing to work with me to get answers to these troubling questions?