Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, Senator Enzi says this debate is grating on the Republican side of the aisle. Sorry, that is how it is when you are on the wrong side of the truth. It is grating to have to hear the truth as Senator Kennedy and others have spoken of. It has been 9 long years since there has been an increase in the minimum wage. It is a disgrace. While we see our friends on the other side fight for the CEOs of oil companies, in the Committee on Commerce, they would not even swear them in. They are all on that side. When it comes to working families, forget about it. Then Senator Enzi implies this does not have anything to do with women. Women make up 59 percent of the workers who would be affected as a result of raising the minimum wage; 1.4 million working mothers would benefit directly, 760,000 single moms would get an immediate raise, and over 3 million kids have parents who would get an immediate raise. What has happened to family values on the other side of the aisle? It seems to me it is just so many empty words. Then they scare you and say the economy will suffer. All you have to do, again, is look at the facts and look at the truth. In the 4 years after the last minimum wage increase passed, the economy experienced its strongest growth in over three decades. All the talk about how bad a minimum wage increase is for the economy is not true. I say to my Republican friends, support the Kennedy increase in the minimum wage. The truth shall set you free. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Virginia. I come to the Senate tonight with a tremendous sense of loss for the victims of the tragic war in Iraq. Yesterday, the military informed two California families that their sons were murdered in cold blood by the very same Iraqi troops they had been training. Let me repeat that: The military informed two California families whose sons were in the National Guard that their sons were murdered in cold blood by the very same Iraqi troops they were training. Sgt. Patrick McCaffrey and 1LT Andre Tyson were killed near Balad 2 years ago. After 2 long years, the Army is now telling the families that Iraqi troops who their sons had been training turned on them and intentionally killed them. This morning, the mother of Sergeant McCaffrey appeared on CNN and said: Patrick was never at ease and he constantly said, ``Mom, we're risking our life every day, all the time, permanently.'' She told the press that Patrick told his commanding officer twice that he was fired upon by Iraqi troops. He told his dad the same thing and his dad told the press that his commanding officer said, and I quote his dad: ``That he should keep his mouth shut.'' Mrs. McCaffrey said she wants the story to come out because she believes there are other instances of Iraqi troops turning on our soldiers. This is a story that is all over the news. It is emblematic of what this war is turning into. This week, we all were devastated to hear of the cruel and savage killing of two United States soldiers who were reportedly tortured in a barbaric fashion. These soldiers were manning a traffic check point when they were captured by insurgents. A third soldier also died in the attack. Every day we hear of a new tragedy from Iraq. Why? Because more than 3 years ago, our President launched a war that was based on false premises. The administration told the American people that Saddam posed an imminent threat to the United States because of his close ties to al-Qaida and because he had an active nuclear weapons program. The administration's case has unraveled in light of the facts. We have a chance tomorrow to stand up and say no to the status quo. We can do it with two Democratic amendments. We know there was no working relationship between al-Qaida and Saddam, and Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program was dormant. Just look at the State Department's own document which Senator Feingold talked about. It says clearly when we were attacked by al- Qaida on that fateful day of September 11, there was not one al-Qaida cell in Iraq. Yet those who asked questions about these false premises were dismissed, ridiculed, called unpatriotic, and, in one case, the case of Ambassador Joe Wilson, he actually faced retaliation. The wife of Ambassador Wilson had her identity as a CIA agent exposed. Why? Because Joe Wilson blew the whistle on President Bush's claim that Iraq had sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Why do I recount Valerie Plame's story? Because it shows just how far the Bush administration and their Republican friends in Congress will go to tarnish and hurt those who see the war differently from them. That is frightening no matter what side of the fence you are on. Imagine going after someone's family because you felt you did not like what the man said. In fact, he told the truth, that there was no truth to the claim that Saddam was seeking yellow cake uranium. In this debate right now, those same voices are saying that anyone who disagrees with the status quo in Iraq and speaks about an exit strategy for the war is advocating a policy of cut-and-run. Let me be clear, calling for redeployment of our troops out of Iraq is not cut- and-run. It is smart and strategic. Why is it smart? Because it will give the signal to the Iraqis that they have to stand up and protect their own country. Why is it strategic? Because it will allow us to use our resources to go after al-Qaida, Osama bin Laden. Let's take a look at the status quo. The status quo in Iraq is an endless venture with ever-changing missions that has resulted in more than 2,500 United States deaths and 18,000 wounded. It is a blank check and a blind eye. I have a chart that shows the costs. This is showing what this President calls ``progress'' and his Republican friends in Congress call progress. Let's look at the facts. The monthly cost of the Iraq war in 2003 was $4.4 billion a month. It is now $8 billion a month. It is causing our debt to soar. It is not being paid for in the usual way: It is put right on Uncle Sam's credit card and our grandchildren will pay the bill, maybe even their children. The estimated number of insurgents in 2003, 3,000; estimated in 2006, 20,000. Is that progress in Iraq? I don't think so. Insurgent attacks in 2003, 5 a day; now, 90 a day. Is that progress? I don't think so. Incidents of sectarian violence, 5 per month; now it is 250 per month. If that is progress, then we are in serious, serious trouble--more trouble than I think we are in. How about Iraqis. Are they optimistic about the future? In 2003, 75 percent were optimistic. Do you know what the number is today? Thirty percent. These figures come from the Brookings Institution. There are claims that the status quo is ``progress,'' when actually the status quo is a disaster. The war is taking a heavy toll on our fighting men and women, many of whom are serving their third tour of duty. Suicides are up. In 2005, 83 United States Army soldiers committed suicide, an increase of 16 suicides over the 67 reported the year before, and the highest number since 90 were recorded in 1993. Of those 83 soldiers, 25 had been deployed to either Afghanistan or Iraq. Divorces are up. Where are the family values around this place? Between 2001 and 2004, divorces among Active-Duty Army personnel have doubled. Divorces have doubled. That is the weight of this war. And post-traumatic stress disorder is rampant. A study published in the July 2004 New England Journal of Medicine revealed that 15 percent of marines and 17 percent of soldiers surveyed after deployment in Iraq ``met the screening criteria for major depression, generalized anxiety, or post traumatic stress disorder.'' Our military men and women have done every single thing we have asked of them--even without a plan to anticipate the insurgency. Even without adequate body armor, even without enough up-armored humvees, here is what this administration has asked our fighting men and women to do: find the weapons of mass destruction, find Saddam Hussein and bring him to justice, find Saddam's family and bring them to justice, secure Iraq for elections--there have been three elections, successful, there-- train Iraqi troops--there are now 260,000 of those Iraqi troops trained. In light of all that our military has done--and they have paid the price in blood, in lost limbs, in pain and suffering and death--what are the Iraqi leaders saying? They have proposed amnesty for those who have killed American soldiers. The amnesty plan would include insurgents who have staged attacks against Americans--even as those attacks continue. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a front-page story from the L.A. Times that ran this past weekend.

Mrs. BOXER. It says: The premier is crafting a reconciliation program that ``doesn't rule out participation of `the bloody-handed people in the political process.''' What happened when we brought up a resolution on this side of the aisle to say, no, no, we will not allow that to happen? What happened? The Republicans stalled us for 2, 3 days, figuring out a way they could get us to back down. But we did not back down. I cannot believe it. They are still killing our soldiers, and the Republicans in the Senate are saying: Oh, give the Iraqi Government a chance. In their wisdom, they will do the right thing. Well, they are not doing the right thing when they are considering giving amnesty to those who are hurting, killing, brutalizing our troops. I cannot believe it. And in light of all that I have laid out, what does our President say? He says: I will not allow us to leave until everything is absolutely perfect in Iraq. He does not know when that is. He is not even willing to talk about conditions that would be enough to bring our troops home. It is kind of like: Well, we will know it when we see it. Well, that is not enough for the American people. When the President said, ``mission accomplished,'' it was not true. And when he says now, we can make this work, we can have a country at peace, we can do all this, and we just have to stay there as long as it takes--blank check. Open checkbook, America. Open checkbook for you. Debts on your children, debts on your grandchildren, and a blind eye to what is happening and what the Iraqi people want. What kind of leadership is that? You think I like standing up here and getting into this kind of debate? No, I do not. But I have never seen anything like this since the Vietnam war, folks. I lived through those years. That was the reason I got into politics, so we would not make this mistake again. Senate Democrats are providing real leadership. Do we all agree every inch of the way? No. But I predict to you, at the end of this vote, tomorrow, Republicans will be firm for the status quo, and Democrats will be for changing the mission, changing the dynamic. And that is going to be important for the American people to know. As I said, redeploying our troops is smart and strategic, and here is why. Again, it is smart and strategic because the Iraqis must stand up to the job of providing security for their own people. My goodness, that is what countries do, folks. That is what countries do. We did it. Yes, we had people help us in the Revolution. By the way, France was one of those countries. But when the fighting was over, we had the boots on the ground. The Iraqi people have to stand up. They have to want democracy as much as we want it for them. And I will tell you, we should start concentrating on the war against terror. My friends on the other side blend it all together. They blend it all together. But I have already proven to you there was not one al- Qaida cell in Iraq on 9/11. The State Department's own documents show it. There were more al-Qaida cells in America than there were in Iraq. But our presence there is fueling the insurgency completely. Let me tell you what Peter Bergen has stated. He is an expert. He is an expert on terrorism. He has written books about it. He says this: What we have done in Iraq is what bin Laden could not have hoped for in his wildest dreams: We invaded an oil rich Muslim nation in the heart of the Middle East, the very type of imperial adventure that bin Laden has long predicted was the United States' long term goal in the region. We deposed the secular socialist Saddam, whom bin Laden has long despised, ignited Sunni and Shia fundamentalist fervor in Iraq, and have now provoked a defensive jihad that has galvanized jihad minded Muslims around the world. It's hard to imagine a set of policies better designed to sabotage the war on terrorism. Now, I have spoken with many generals and military experts who agree that our long-term presence in Iraq is counterproductive. They tell us that our continued presence will continue to breed terrorists not only in Iraq but throughout the world. Now, I want to show you, as I wind down this speech, how the Iraqi people now feel about our presence. The Brookings Institution revealed this poll. It was just printed in the press a few days ago. If this does not tell the story, nothing does. Eighty-seven percent of the Iraqis support a timeline for U.S. redeployment. Eighty-seven percent of the Iraqi people want us out of there and want a timeline specifically. By the way, this is one thing that unites all the groups there. Sixty-four percent of the Kurds want a timeline for U.S. redeployment. Ninety percent of the Shias want a timeline for U.S. redeployment. Ninety-four percent of the Sunnis want a timeline for U.S. redeployment. So you tell me how it makes sense, at a time when we are learning that the Iraqis, whom we are training, have, in at least two cases we know about, turned against our soldiers, who are risking their lives-- shot them in cold blood. For what? They are there to help the Iraqi people, and they are being killed. I have to say that the status quo is leading us deeper and deeper into a place we don't want to be as a country. The American people want an exit strategy. An exit strategy is not cut-and-run; it is smart and strategic. The status quo is more of the same. How many more times will we come down here and talk about beheadings? How many more times will we come down? How many more deaths will it take until finally we say enough is enough? That time, I hope, is coming. I think we are going to see votes on these two Democratic amendments that, when taken together, will indicate a real difference here between the parties. Listen to what the Iraqi people are saying. Listen to what the American people are saying. Listen to what the world is saying. The views of the United States by people all over the world are going down. In the last year alone, favorable views of the United States dropped in Spain, from 41 percent to 23 percent approval; in Indonesia, from 38 percent down to 30 percent; in Turkey, from 23 percent to 12 percent; and in India--India is considered one of our best friends--it has gone from 71 percent down to 56 percent. This does not make us stronger in the world; it makes us weaker. This does not make us safer in the world; it makes us more vulnerable. I believe in democracy. So let us look at what the Iraqi people are telling us they want. They want a timeline and want us out. Let's listen to the generals who have told us that our long-term presence is fueling the insurgency and we need to get out. Let's listen to the American people who are wise and love our troops and say it is time for an exit strategy. Folks, we are paralyzed. We are paralyzed here. It is like we are in a hole and we can't get out. Well, I say today is the day to start climbing out of that hole. Senate Democrats have proposed two ways to change the dynamics here in this war. I plan to vote aye for the Kerry-Feingold-Boxer amendment. It speaks to me as something that will work for us. It is strategic. It is wise. It is smart. I will also vote for the Levin amendment because it moves us in the right direction. It shakes up the mission into something that makes sense. It changes the mission. It starts bringing our troops home and starts to redeploy them. So my feeling is, the status quo is a disaster. It is a disaster. Let us open our eyes to the truth. Can you imagine how I felt when I got a call in my office by a woman who couldn't find out the truth about who killed her son? And the military had completed its investigation, and they knew her son was killed by the very same Iraqi soldiers whom he was training. And they kept it a secret? They kept it a secret until today from that woman. I have to say, why? Is it because they are fearful that when the American people learn of this, the support for this war will plummet even further? I don't know the answer to that question. But so far, I have no good answers. It worried me with Mr. Tillman, Patrick Tillman, in Afghanistan, when they said he was killed by the enemy, and the parents pressed on and pressed on, and it turned out to be friendly fire. I am telling you, my colleagues, this is a turning point for us as individual Senators. I hope we have the courage to say no to the status quo, support the Kerry-Feingold-Boxer alternative, and also support the Levin alternative because they both shake it up and say, once and for all, we need to talk about an exit strategy. In the end, that is going to be the road for success. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to honor George Wingate High School in Brooklyn, NY. Wingate High School, my alma mater, will graduate its last class on June 27, 2006. In 1954, Wingate High School accepted its first class of students and had its first graduating class in 1957. It was the first high school built in New York after the end of World War II, and it embodied many of the ideals of the baby boomer generation. Wingate High School was so different from the standard design plan for schools that it became known as ``The Banjo School'' because of its open design. Wingate High School was also innovative in its approach to teaching. Instead of focusing strictly on academic classes, Wingate was one of the first high schools in the Nation to offer a comprehensive range of classes in vocational, commercial and academic fields. Wingate High School has been known for its outstanding aviation, culinary arts, nursing and law programs, and many of its students have gone on to become successful pilots, chefs, nurses and attorneys. Wingate has had a few famous graduates such as former New York State senator and current Brooklyn Borough president, Marty Markowitz, and Roger Brown, a New York City playground legend who went on to greatness in the American Basketball Association. However, thousands of other Wingate graduates have made priceless contributions to their communities, in part because of the valuable lessons they learned there. I firmly believe that a quality education is the key to our youths' success and our nation's future. I commend Wingate's teachers, faculty, staff, and volunteers for their many years of hard work and dedication to Wingate High School's students. Their work has resulted in thousands of students who are better prepared to face the world and its challenges. I commend them for their commitment to quality education. Their enthusiasm and love of teaching means a brighter future for all of our children. Wingate High School's motto is: ``Ad Astra per Ardua''--``To the stars through struggle.'' In its 52-year history, George Wingate High School has graduated thousands of students who have gone on to make the world a better place. Though the journey has not always been easy, I know that Wingate's 2006 graduates will go on to do great things. I give my most sincere congratulations and best wishes for the future to Wingate High School's Class of 2006.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise to add my voice to the chorus of praise for an extraordinary member of this institution--my dear friend from West Virginia, Senator Robert Byrd. What a pleasure it has been to serve with Senator Byrd. I am constantly inspired by his grace--his brilliance--and his unmatched work ethic. Today we honor Senator Byrd for reaching the milestone of longest- serving Senator in history--8 terms--48 years--and 17,666 votes. These are stunning numbers, but this legend is much more than the Cal Ripken, Jr., of the Senate. Longevity is only part of the story. We know him best for his intellect, his devotion to the people of West Virginia, and his reverence for the institution of the Senate; for keeping a copy of the Constitution in his breast pocket--next to his heart--at all times, not for symbolism but for constant counsel, for having served beside 11 Presidents--both Democrat and Republican; for standing with them when their cause is just--yet never backing down from a fight with any President when he believes important principles are at stake, particularly when our role as a coequal branch of government is threatened. And that is what I admire most about Senator Byrd: He always stands on principle and fights for what he believes, no matter what the odds. What an inspiration this has been to me and to so many of us. What an inspiration--his love of this country, his integrity, his absolute dedication to honest and principled government. And what an inspiration--his 68-year partnership with his wife Erma-- whom I know he misses dearly--and whom I know is looking down on him today with tremendous pride and love. And it is for these reasons--far more than for his longevity--that we honor him today. But anyone who knows Senator Byrd realizes that these words of praise are not sought because, despite his well-earned title of Senate Historian--Senator Byrd is not one to dwell on the past. He is a forward thinker. For him, this special day is really just another day at the office. Because as Robert Byrd knows best of all--there are crucial issues to debate. Problems to solve. And many more votes to be cast.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be allowed to address the Senate until 7 p.m. tonight.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, before he leaves the floor, I wanted to say to my colleague from Delaware that he painted a very strong case of what we ought to be doing on the Senate floor. Without reading a note, he ticked off a list of six or seven things or eight things that we really need to take care of, and I just wanted to thank him very much. I rise today to oppose the proposed constitutional amendment on marriage. I oppose it. I think it is divisive. I think it is unnecessary. I want to lay out the reasons. First of all, the proposed amendment is nothing more than a cynical election year ploy. I truly believe that, and I think if anyone has followed this every-couple-of-year debate, they know it is true. It pops up like clockwork around election time. Second, the definition of marriage, as has been stated by Senator Carper from Delaware, who was the Governor of that State, has been determined by the States, and indeed the States are acting in many ways to decide whether they want to legalize gay marriage or legalize domestic partnerships or civil unions or outlaw all of these things. So States are making their decisions, and they should be respected. On a personal note, let me say that I have been married for 44 years to the same person. I have to say as someone married for that length of time, the fact that two gay people decide they want to take care of each other for the rest of their lives and care about each other for the rest of their lives, that doesn't threaten my marriage one bit. It doesn't threaten me. It doesn't make me worry about my marriage. My marriage is too strong for that. The fact is, if someone feels their marriage is threatened because two gay people care about each other, then their problems go way deeper than they are caring to admit. Throughout our Nation's history, we have only amended the Constitution to extend rights and equality, and that is an important point. So I think we have established in this debate that the States are taking care of this issue, and they are coming out in all different places. That is the way it ought to be. So here we are, June 2006, with only a few precious months left on the Senate calendar, and we are facing some very serious issues at a critical time in our history. It is our duty to respond to the American people and their needs. I truly believe that this President and the Republican leadership are ignoring the needs of the American people, and that is why we see the lowest ratings ever--I think ever--for this particular Congress and very low ratings for the President. For example, what do President Bush and the Republican leadership say to the families of our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan who want to know when their loved ones will be coming home? Why aren't we talking about that instead of an issue that is being handled by the States? Maybe they don't answer that question because they don't want to say that the war in Iraq has killed and wounded over 20,000 American soldiers, and there is no end in sight to the war. That brings up an issue that I care a lot about, which is the state of our military men and women. If you want to talk about their marriages for a minute, why don't we do that? Divorces are up, way up, among families who are deployed to these war zones. Families are suffering. The divorce rate between 2000 and 2004 nearly doubled in the Army, and it did not double in the Army because two people who happen to be of the same sex care about each other and want to take care of each other for the rest of their lives. That is not why military marriages are failing. They are under stress, impossible stress, the hard-to-imagine stress of being deployed again and again and again, going out on a battlefield with antidepressants being handed out to them. That is why they are suffering. That is why we see their marriages breaking up and their children crying themselves to sleep every night. But, oh no, we are not talking about that. We are talking about an issue that is being handled by the States. I don't understand why this administration will not talk about these issues. Why won't they talk about the fact that we have lost our focus in Afghanistan, despite the fact that a resurgent Taliban has vowed to step up attacks during coming months and we are seeing such a resurgence of the Taliban there. Why aren't we discussing that instead of a cynical and divisive and unnecessary constitutional amendment about something that is being taken care of by the States? What do President Bush and the Republican leadership say about our security here at home? What they don't want to say is that nearly 5 years after 9/11 they still have not adopted the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. Shouldn't we be discussing ways to secure our ports and our rails, and ways to track foreign visitors in the U.S., instead of this cynical, divisive and unnecessary constitutional amendment on a subject that is being handled by the Governors and by the States? Why do President Bush and the Republican leadership say nothing about gas prices? Why are they doing nothing about gas prices? Maybe it is because they don't want to say that they don't have any solutions--like raising fuel economy standards in a meaningful way or strongly promoting the use of hybrid cars or flex-fuel vehicles so we use less gasoline. This President tomorrow could issue an Executive order that says all the cars that are bought by Federal taxpayers for the Federal fleet have to be the most fuel efficient cars available. They are not doing that. They would rather talk about this amendment, which is about a subject that is being handled by the States. What does the President and what do the Republicans and the leadership say to the millions of Americans who need access to affordable health care? They don't want to talk about that. They want to talk about this divisive amendment. Maybe it is because they have no clue of what to do, even though health care costs continue to be a tremendous burden on our small businesses and our individuals and our families, and the prescription drug benefit is rife with problems. Tomorrow we could vote to give Medicare the power and the authority to negotiate for lower drug prices, which would save that program millions, and we would be able to make the program stronger and not put a halt to the benefits, which is called a doughnut hole, just when the sickest patients need more. Oh, no, they would rather talk about an amendment on a divisive subject that is being handled by the States. Why don't they talk about the fact that our families are struggling to pay for college tuition for their children? They don't want to talk about that because they have failed to help America's families pay for college, despite the fact that tuition is becoming hugely expensive and more expensive each and every year. As a matter of fact, President Bush just signed a tax law that makes college loans more expensive. But, oh no, we can't talk about that. We are going to talk about a divisive amendment on a subject that is being handled by the States. Why don't they want to talk about our fiscal situation? Why don't they? They don't want to say that as a result of their policies, the policies of this administration and my Republican friends, we now have seen the surpluses that were left to them, to their stewardship, turn into deficits as far as the eye could see. They are projected to hit well over $300 billion, and the public debt stands at an eye-popping $8.4 trillion. When they got the reins of Government there were going to be surpluses as far as the eye can see. Now there are deficits as far as the eye can see. They don't want to say that it is this administration's failed policies that will leave our children and grandchildren with a bill for the tax cuts to the wealthiest people, tax cuts that we can't afford. How do they really respond to the concerns and the anxieties of the American people, anxieties and concerns that we see in poll after poll? This is not Democratic polls or Republican polls, these are everybody's polls. People are worried. They say we are on the wrong track. But this is what this administration says, and this Congress, they say: Sorry, America, please hold. Please hold, America, while the Senate takes time to consider a constitutional amendment that has nothing to do with the most serious issues you face today. Why? Because they need to score political points. Please hold, America, because, although we have been elected to serve you and unite you, we would rather divide you for our own partisan interests. If I were a conservative I would be insulted today, insulted by the fact that I am being used as a political pawn by this President and the Republican leadership. I would be insulted. The issue of marriage has been determined by the States. For those people who worried about it, there was DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act. I believed at the time that wasn't even necessary because I believe the States have the right to make decisions about marriage. But it passed and it has been upheld. So what is the problem? There is not a problem. From the party that says let the States decide, suddenly the States do not know as much as these Senators here. They know everything, and they are going to amend the Constitution on something that the States are handling. This, in many ways, is a telling moment for this Senate. With all the issues I have laid out and the issues that Senator Carper has laid out, there is no planning for these issues. So this Senate is being used as part of a political campaign. I resent that, when we have men and women dying every single day in Iraq, newspaper reporters being blown up. But we have to talk about a subject that is being handled by the States. As I said before, we have never amended our Constitution to take away rights. We don't do that in America. We are too strong for that. We are too good for that. We are a model of freedom because of that. But that is precisely what is being proposed here, an amendment that is unnecessary because the States are handling this and all this does is divide us instead of uniting us. Look at some of the great examples of our constitutional amendments. The Bill of Rights--the first ten amendments--guarantee important liberties to Americans, from freedom of speech to freedom from unwarranted search and seizure to freedom of religion. And the 10th amendment reserves for the States all powers not specifically given to the Federal Government. The 13th, 14th and 15th amendments corrected the horrific injustices of slavery by giving African-Americans the right to vote and equal protection under the law. The 19th amendment gave women the right to vote, and the 26th amendment gave 18-year-olds the right to vote. This short but impressive list of amendments demonstrates that our Constitution is meant to expand, not restrict, freedom and equality. I want to say to my colleagues that there is something about this debate that has bothered me. As I have listened to some of my colleagues comment in support of this proposed amendment--which is their total right to support--I have been troubled by the suggestion that gay Americans are responsible for a host of problems in our society, from children born out of wedlock to poverty to divorce. These comments are wrong. These comments are wrong. It is wrong to find scapegoats in our great country. Gays and lesbians, they are God's children too. They wake up every morning, they try to do the best to live their lives, the best for the people they love. And they live their lives one day at a time. We can solve problems such as unintended pregnancies, poverty, divorce, and adoption without stooping to scapegoat and hurt so many people. If we want to strengthen families, let's strengthen families. Let's help families with their college tuition. Let's help families with their child care. Let's help them by raising the minimum wage. Let's clean up Superfund sites that are near schools. Let's help the 44 million Americans who need health insurance. Let's help those who are reaching retirement age, who are so frightened because the promise of the golden years is not there. Let's reach out to each other and do that instead of being forced to deal with manufactured political issues which, again, pop up every election year. That sends false hopes out to some Americans who really want this constitutional amendment. They are being used. It also sends out fear and sadness to so many other Americans. We can do better. We must do better for all Americans. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a resolution to spur a political solution in Iraq and encourage the people of Iraq to provide for their own security through the redeployment of U.S. military forces. I introduce this resolution with the hope and prayer that we will redeploy U.S. troops from Iraq and end this ill-fated war that has resulted in more than 20,000 U.S. troops killed or wounded. This resolution speaks for itself. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, on behalf of Democrats, I must object.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a resolution to spur a political solution in Iraq and encourage the people of Iraq to provide for their own security through the redeployment of U.S. military forces. I introduce this resolution with the hope and prayer that we will redeploy U.S. troops from Iraq and end this ill-fated war that has resulted in more than 20,000 U.S. troops killed or wounded. This resolution speaks for itself. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I oppose the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia. Mr. Kavanaugh's lack of experience, partisan ideological leanings, lack of judicial temperament, and refusal to adequately answer questions posed by the Judiciary Committee make him unqualified to sit on the second highest court in the country. Mr. Kavanaugh is a young lawyer who has spent most of his career in partisan positions. He lacks substantive courtroom experience and has never tried a case to a verdict. In fact, a judge before whom he appeared characterized Mr. Kavanaugh work as ``less than adequate'' and at the experience level of an associate. Nor is Mr. Kavanaugh a noted legal scholar. The highlight of his career has been working with Kenneth Starr in the Office of the Solicitor General and at the Office of the Independent Counsel, where he spent 4 years and coauthored the infamous Starr Report. Upon further review the nonpartisan American Bar Association panel downgraded Mr. Kavanaugh's rating from ``well-qualified'' to ``qualified.'' He was described by interviewees as ``sanctimonious,'' and ``immovable and very stubborn and frustrating to deal with on some issues.'' These are not qualities that make for a good judge. His low rating and nonjudicious demeanor put him in stark contrast to the majority of appointments to the DC Circuit who received ``well- qualified'' ratings and respectful reviews from the American Bar Association review panel. The President can and should do better than this. The country deserves better than this.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, had I been present to vote on the nomination of Gen. Michael Hayden to be Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, I would have cast a vote of ``no''. I oppose General Hayden's nomination because of his role in the administration's program to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance on U.S. persons--a practice I believe is unlawful under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. During his nomination hearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee, General Hayden admitted to participating in the design of the electronic surveillance program during his tenure as director of the National Security Agency. And as the Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence, General Hayden became the chief advocate for the electronic surveillance program, even taking the unusual step of appearing before the National Press Club to defend the Administration's program. We are all united in fighting terrorism, but we can do it in a legal and constitutional way that gets the bad guys and protects our values and freedoms. While I oppose the nomination of General Hayden because of the controversy surrounding the electronic surveillance program, I wish him the very best and hope that he will turn out to be a strong and independent leader at the CIA. But I also hope that the Intelligence Committees in the House and Senate will conduct careful and thorough oversight over General Hayden and the CIA to ensure that the civil liberties of U.S. citizens are protected.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, had I been present for the vote to invoke cloture on the nomination of my former colleague, Dirk Kempthorne, to be Secretary of the Interior, I would have cast a vote of ``aye''.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will not object, but I just want to find out what the regular order is because I am prepared to offer an amendment. I want to make sure that is still the plan on both sides, that that will happen after the Senator from Georgia speaks.

Mrs. BOXER. OK. Then I must object at the moment.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues on both sides. We made a technical modification. It doesn't change anything, but makes it clearer. I ask unanimous consent that Senators Dorgan and Stabenow be added as cosponsors to amendment No. 4144.

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

Mrs. BOXER. Would the Chair be so kind as to let me know when I have 3 minutes remaining.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, my amendment would require that employers take real steps to attract and hire U.S. workers prior to petitioning the Department of Homeland Security for authorization to hire an H-2C nonimmigrant. In other words, what we are trying to say here is, if there is a job available for an American worker, for a U.S. worker, let's make sure that they get that job before we give it away to an immigrant worker. Over the next 5 years, a million foreign workers could enter the country under that guest worker program that is in the bill. This is a million new workers who will be competing with U.S. workers for jobs. Advocates of the guest worker program claim that it is needed because Americans are not willing to do the jobs that will be filled by these foreign guest workers. But it seems to me, whether you believe that or not, we need to ensure that every step is taken to hire a U.S. worker first, because these jobs we are talking about are not agricultural jobs. Those are addressed in a different section, the AgJOBS bill. We are not talking about high-tech jobs because we take care of that in another portion of the bill. So let's take a look at the jobs we are talking about. I have them here on this chart. These are the jobs that will be taken by guest workers unless we can say that, in fact, there is an American worker for their job. I ask rhetorically, will we have U.S. workers for construction jobs? Will we have U.S. workers for food preparation jobs? Will we have U.S. workers for manufacturing jobs? Will we have U.S. workers for transportation jobs? Clearly, if you look at the jobs that are being held today, 86 percent of construction jobs are held by U.S. workers; food preparation, 88 percent; manufacturing, 91 percent; transportation, 93 percent. So obviously, there are workers in this country, U.S. workers who can take those jobs, rather than importing a guest worker to take them. These are good jobs. They pay well. Right now, again, the overwhelming number of them are held by U.S. citizens and legal workers. Why is it that U.S. workers want these jobs? It is because they pay well. The average worker in the construction sector gets $18.21 an hour or $37,890 a year. Construction work is a good job. It is a job for which there are many U.S. workers. If we are going to open these jobs to foreign workers through the guest worker program, we better make sure that employers cannot find a U.S. worker who is willing to do the job. U.S. workers deserve to get the first crack at these jobs. All we are saying to the employers is, do anything you can first to make sure you can fill this job with an American worker. The underlying bill is vague on what employers have to do. That is the reason why we are working with the working people here. We have come up with a very good way to ensure that there are concrete steps that have to be taken by employers before they fill a job with a foreign worker. Again, the underlying bill says the employer has to say: I made a good faith effort. But it does not lay out specific steps that they have to take. So the bill doesn't do enough to ensure that U.S. workers will find out that there are openings, and it doesn't do enough to make sure that they have an opportunity to apply for a job before it is given away to a foreign guest worker. This amendment throws light on the process. It makes sure the job listings get to the U.S. workers in time to make a difference. I say to colleagues on both sides of the aisle, if you stand with U.S. workers, then vote ``yes'' on this amendment. What is it that we ask employers to do? It is quite simple. We ask them to submit a copy of the job offer to their local State employment services agency before they file a petition for an H-2C worker. Then the State employment agency is authorized to post the job on the Internet, job banks, and with unemployment agencies. In addition, the agency, if they wanted, could share the job listing with local unions representing workers that are relevant to the job listing. What else does the employer have to do? I already said they had to notify the State employment agency. They have one more thing they have to do. They have to post in a conspicuous place in the workplace a notice that says there is a job opening. That is all they have to do, put up a notice that there is a job opening. Put it in a conspicuous place, tell the State employment agency there is a job opening, and allow them to recruit. We do not add any more time in the process. It all is done in the same timeframe. This amendment is a win/win for everyone. It is a win for the employers because they are going to give a good chance to a U.S. worker. It is a win for America's workers. The burdens that we place on employers are practically nonexistent: To notify the State employment department and to post a notice of the job opening. There is no delay. The bill already requires employers to make a good faith effort, and they have to do that 90 days before they file a petition. All of this will be done in that timeframe. Our amendment helps U.S. workers find out about job openings before employers file a petition for a foreign worker. Unemployment agencies and unions get a chance to find out about the jobs. They can present those to qualified workers. In fact, both the AFL-CIO and the Teamsters strongly support this amendment. We think as a result of this amendment, the news of a job is spread broadly. And hopefully a U.S. worker will fill the position. If not, the employer is free to file his petition and recruit a foreign guest worker. I believe if we do not impose adequate recruitment procedures, it is the U.S. worker who will ultimately pay the price and, frankly, revolt against this bill. Jobs that should have been filled domestically will be given to foreign workers, and that is wrong. Unemployment will increase, and there will be downward pressure on wages and working conditions. This amendment would help ensure that companies will be able to get the workers they need and that U.S. workers will have a chance to fill those positions. I retain the remainder of my time.

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

Mrs. BOXER. Absolutely.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, this is not what we do. Before a guest worker is hired, we ask the employer to do two things during the 90-day period, the same period. We ask him, like the bill says, to make a good faith effort. And part of that we define as posting the job in the workplace and calling the local State employment department. And then if they can't find an American worker, then they can hire a guest worker. We don't say it is after the guest worker is hired. I felt compelled to tell my friend. Please, if you could reread the amendment, because what we say is during that 90-day period that you have, we are only adding a requirement of simply posting that position and notifying the department of employment.

Mrs. BOXER. I read the section of the bill several times. What you have in the bill is very good. It says the employer must make a good faith effort before hiring a guest worker, and he or she has to take 90 days. All we do is say, in that 90-day period, the employer must post a job notice in the plant and notify the department of employment. That is all we are doing. We don't change anything in the bill. We just say during the 90-day period, post the job and let the State Department of Employment know. I don't understand why we have a problem with this.

Mrs. BOXER. I say to my friend from Pennsylvania, thank you very much. Your staff was extremely helpful. Now we have with this bill more protections for American workers. We have stated in this amendment very clearly that an employer is going to make every effort to offer a job to an American worker before he or she hires a guest worker by simply doing two things: posting the available job, posting that information on the premises; and, second, notifying the department of employment in the State in which the business is located so they can advertise the slot. I thank, again, Senator Specter, Senator Kennedy, and both their staffs for all their hard work. I ask this amendment be agreed to by voice vote.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, currently, 10 to 12 million workers are in this country illegally living in the shadows. Of those, approximately 24 percent or 2.5 to 3 million undocumented immigrants are living in California. Many of these people are longtime residents, hard workers, and with American-born children. They are the parents of children in your school. They are members of your community whom you know and respect. Any comprehensive immigration reform bill must address the plight of undocumented workers currently in the country. Unfortunately, the current provision in the bill is not rational and could leave millions of individuals without relief and forced to hide. Under the three-tier process created by the Hagel-Martinez compromise, undocumented immigrants here less than 2 years are subject to deportation, and those here from 2 to 5 years must return to their country and seek reentry under a guest/worker program. It is estimated that these tiers would apply to nearly 5 million people--that means approximately a million residents of California would either face voluntary departure or deportation. Families would be broken apart and industries disrupted as workers are forced to leave or go into hiding. California cannot afford and most of its residents do not support the convoluted Hagel-Martinez approach. That is why I was pleased that my colleague, Senator Feinstein, has proposed a much more practical and humane approach in her orange card program. Under the program, all undocumented immigrants who are in the United Stats as of January 1, 2006, would be eligible to get on a path to legality. They would be required to pass criminal and national security background checks, demonstrate an understanding of English and U.S. history and Government, have paid their back taxes and pay a $2,000 fine. Moreover, orange card holders would have a continuing obligation to work, pay their taxes, and not to engage in criminal activity. The Feinstein orange card program establishes a realistic approach to dealing with the 10 to 12 million undocumented workers currently in the country. In conjunction with her AgJOBS amendment, Senator Feinstein has addressed two of the most important aspects of the comprehensive immigration reform bill. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Feinstein amendment. It is a workable solution to a difficult problem.