Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be yielded 10 minutes of Senator Durbin's time with the hope that I can finish in that time. If not, I will ask for another 5 minutes.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am going to support the budget point of order on S. 852. I want to explain why I am doing this. First, I want to say if anybody has listened to Senator Kent Conrad talk about what is going to happen in the outyears with this bill, the trust fund, if anyone listened to him, it seems very difficult to me to vote against this budget point of order. We are on the edge of passing a bill that is masquerading as a solution to a deadly problem, and asbestos victims need to know the truth. Frankly, they were lied to once when companies exposed their workers to asbestos without telling them of the danger, and I don't want to lie to these victims again. The simple truth is there are not sufficient funds in the trust fund to compensate all the current and future asbestos victims. We should not compound the problem of the past by offering false promises and cutting victims off from help. I know there are many who don't agree with what I have just said, but I think if, again, you listen to Senator Conrad, and you go back to see what has happened to other trust funds, I think it is very clear there are not enough funds in this trust fund. Some estimates are it is perhaps 50 percent of what it ought to be. Some say that people will go back to court if there are not enough funds. I know that is a very well meaning part of this bill, but it isn't as easy as all that. It is going to be very difficult for people in the future years. I think we are going to see more companies claim they are bankrupt. There will be a lot of lawsuits. That is not to say there is no problem for asbestos victims today. Providing them with just compensation is something they deserve. If we were able to increase the size of the fund and include all of the victims who deserve to be compensated, that would be a good solution. I know this is what many honorable and hard-working Senators on both sides have tried to do, but the current legislation doesn't get us there. Asbestos kills 10,000 Americans every year. Such a large number of deaths is hard to comprehend, so let me tell my colleagues about just a few of the victims in California and why this bill will hurt them, not help them. Here is a picture of Rebecca Martinez. Rebecca is the wife of Margarito who lived in Baldwin Park, CA, and she is pictured here on the right. Margarito worked as a plasterer and Rebecca would clean his asbestos-covered clothes when he came home, breathing in the dust as she shook them out and did the laundry. They were never warned about the dangers of asbestos. Rebecca was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2002, as we all know, a deadly cancer caused only by asbestos. She died 4 months later, leaving behind her husband and three children. Her husband has spent more than $50,000 on a pending wrongful death suit. However, if this bill is passed, he will never get to go to court and face the people who are responsible for his wife's death. This bill will force him back to square one, and he will face, potentially, years of delay. And here he is, a widower having to raise his kids. For those who are about to resolve their court cases, I see no reason to force them into a trust fund process. It is wrong. People have invested time in the court system, and this bill will rip them out of the court system just as they are about to get justice. This is a picture of Georgina Bryson. She lived in Riverside, CA, when she died of mesothelioma. From 1962 until 1980, Georgina lived downtown from two cement companies that used asbestos to manufacture their products. Georgina was also exposed to asbestos when she lived with her dad who worked with gaskets that contained asbestos. Georgina was only 40 years old when she died from mesothelioma. Her family filed a wrongful death action and, to the credit of the California court system--to the credit of the California court system--the suit settled. The cement plants agreed to pay 90 percent of the award, recognizing that they were primarily responsible for the death. The problem with the legislation before us is, if Georgina's family didn't have access to the courts, and they filed the claim with the asbestos fund, they could receive possibly no compensation. Because Georgina's asbestos exposure was not work related, she lived downwind from the cement manufacturers, she would not meet the occupational requirements of the bill. There are many people in California and elsewhere who never worked with asbestos but were exposed to it because they lived near factories, mines, and processing plants with asbestos. This certainly was the case in Libby, MT, and residents of that town are taken care of in the bill. That is a wonderful thing for them. Lord knows there is suffering there. The exposure requirements for anyone who lived or worked for at least 12 months within 20 miles of the mining or milling facility in Libby are waived, so the people in Libby are taken care of, and I am happy for them. But the bill fails to provide the same relief to people in at least 41 other communities across the country who live near a plant that processed vermiculite from Libby. How is that equal justice under the law? It also fails to protect people who lived near other mines or plants that released asbestos into the air. For example, Santa Ana is one of roughly 23 cities in California that received more than 1 million tons of Libby's vermiculite. Yet this bill would compound the injuries to affected community members by largely barring nonoccupational exposures. As I said, no one can call this justice. The bill also fails to adequately address another problem important to my State, as well as the Nation--naturally occurring asbestos. I am going to show you a map of California where we show the counties containing naturally occurring asbestos. Forty-four of California's 58 counties are known to have naturally occurring asbestos. The problem, however, is not California specific. Twenty-nine States are known to have naturally occurring asbestos. This asbestos can threaten public health. This shows in red where the States have this problem with naturally occurring asbestos. In 2005, a University of California-Davis study found that the risk of mesothelioma decreased by 6.4 percent for every 6 miles further away a person lived from a naturally occurring asbestos source. Under the bill, people who get a terminal illness from naturally occurring asbestos may take their case to the medical exceptions panel, but there are three problems. First, I want to thank my colleague, Senator Feinstein, for getting that into the bill. At least they can go to this special panel. But there are problems. First, the level of funding established by the bill for the trust fund, as I said before, is insufficient to pay for the claims expected to be filed with the exceptional medical claims panel. It is insufficient. There wouldn't be funding left. The CBO stated in a letter on February 1 to Senator Specter that: There is a significant likelihood that the fund's revenues would fall short of the amount needed to pay valid claims, debt service, and administrative costs. This is, in part, because the CBO explicitly stated that it did not include ``the costs of any exceptional medical claims'' in its estimate. What kind of chance do my people have for being exposed to naturally occurring asbestos and the people who live in all of these States? This isn't justice. If we want to do justice, we need a bill that is sufficiently funded through the trust fund to take care of all of our people, not just some of our people. The Democratic staff of the Budget Committee predicts a shortfall in the trust fund of $150 billion or more. That is $150 billion that taxpayers may have to pay to bail out the trust fund. It is easy to say: Oh, you will just go back to the courts. But that is a time period in which we don't know what the situation will look like, more companies will claim bankruptcy, and people will then have to move from the trust fund over to the courts. It is a giant nightmare. Second, it is not clear that the companies paying into the fund should be the ones responsible for compensating people who become sick from naturally occurring asbestos. Construction companies disturbing naturally occurring asbestos may expose residents to fibers, but those companies are generally not the ones paying into the fund. So this makes no sense at all for people who live in areas with naturally occurring asbestos. They are different defendants that need to step up and pay compensation. Third, there is no deadline by which the medical exceptions panel must act on a claim. Given the number of people who may file claims with the panel, it could be years before the panel makes a decision on a particular case. Is this better than the current court system? Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for just 2 more minutes.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I don't think it is better than the current court system, certainly not in my State. In California, we have an expedited processing of suits for sick plaintiffs. Roughly 22 States have procedures that ensure mesothelioma victims and those with other very serious cancers have their cases heard in a year or less. In California the courts can hear such cases within 120 days. There are States where the courts work, and they should be allowed to continue their good work without getting taxpayers involved in this trust fund. Where it is working, do no harm. Let it proceed. Most, if not all, of us could support an asbestos trust fund that is fair to victims, but this proposal is not. I have gone through the ways that it is not. I have shown my colleagues the faces of those who would be harmed or would have been harmed if this trust fund were in place. We can fix this. We can make the trust fund bigger, that is one solution, or we can say in the 22 States that are dealing with this, let them deal with it. Let's grandfather in the cases that are already in the system. I am very fearful--very fearful--that a lot of people who are going to depend on this trust fund are going to find out that it isn't what it is cracked up to be. The bill promises the Moon, and I don't even know if it will deliver a sliver of the Moon. I just want to say to those who are following this debate who are suffering, I honestly believe that everybody thinks, everybody thinks they are working for you, but what I say is this: If the system is already working for you, let it work for you. Let's not promise you the Moon and not be able to deliver it. Let's make sure there is justice for people who live, say, downwind in California from a company that received the product from Libby. The people in Libby are taken care of. The people in my State and many other States are not taken care of. This isn't fair. What happened to equal justice? What happened to fairness? We can do it. People of goodwill on both sides can do the right thing. This isn't a question of this bill or no bill. So I honestly think that by supporting this point of order, first of all, we are being honest with the people. We are being honest with the people. We are saying there is not enough money in this trust fund and the taxpayers are going to have to bear the burden and who knows what will happen at that time. With the kind of deficits that are being racked up here, with the kind of national debt that is being racked up here, where is the money going to come from? Some say: Go back to the court system. That is a very complicated matter. Every State has its own way. In some States it works well, like California. In other States, it doesn't. So I urge my colleagues, yes, to protect asbestos victims who may not be so lucky as the people in Libby. Let's take care of the people in Libby, and let's take care of all of the victims and potential victims and vote against waiving this budget point of order. A budget point of order lies against this bill. The Parliamentarian has told us; the CBO has told us. Let's do the honest thing. Let's support the budget point of order, go back to the drawing board. Let's take care of these people and do it in the right way. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Feingold, I object.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise to honor the memory of the late LCDR Frank Carl Wittwer. Lieutenant Commander Wittwer, a longtime Hanford resident, perished when his F/A-18C Hornet went down during a training mission near Naval Air Facility El Centro on January 18, 2006. He was 35 years old. A 1994 graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy, Lieutenant Commander Wittwer was fondly remembered as a friendly and active student who participated in a number of activities such as music and youth ministries at his church. Upon receiving his bachelor of science degree in systems engineering, he began his successful active-duty career as a surface warfare officer aboard the USS California and the USS McFaul. In recognition of his considerable talents, Lieutenant Commander Wittwer was assigned to the Hornet Program with VFA-137 in 2001. Subsequently, he received postings at Strike Fighter Wing Pacific Fleet as safety officer and a follow-on assignment with the VFA-97 Warhawks. Throughout his years of service, Lieutenant Commander Wittwer was known as a dedicated and honorable serviceman who embodied the best qualities and ideals of the U.S. Navy. In his personal life, Lieutenant Commander Wittwer demonstrated a genuine commitment to improving the lives of others. A popular figure in the community and an elder in the First Presbyterian Church in Hanford, he had a passion in working with kindergartners and grade school students. A man of many talents, Lieutenant Commander Wittwer recently completed the executive MBA program at the California State University, Fresno's Craig School of Business. Lieutenant Commander Wittwer will be remembered by those whose lives he touched as a devoted family man, a loyal friend and an outstanding member of the U.S. Navy. He is survived by his wife Mendi; daughters Erin and Abbie; son Jack; sister Patti; nephew Josh; and his grandfather Hurdis Harris.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise to recognize the 100th anniversary of one of the most significant disasters in California history, San Francisco's Great Earthquake and Fire of 1906. One hundred years ago, the city of San Francisco experienced this horrific tragedy when the city shook for almost 60 seconds and communities from as far away as Oregon, Los Angeles, and Nevada felt the tremors. The Richter scale was not yet in existence in 1906, but seismologists today estimate this earthquake had a magnitude of 7.7 to 8.0. Following the earthquake, fires broke out across the city and raged for 3 days. In fact, the fires did more damage than the earthquake. As a result of this disaster, over 3,000 people were killed, 300,000 people became homeless, and the city suffered about $500 million worth of damage. Telegraph and telephone services were destroyed as well as the municipal railway and all government buildings. The 100th anniversary of this historic tragedy provides an opportunity to reflect on what we have learned and how to better prepare for a similar event. We now know that residents must be prepared to be self-sufficient for 72 hours following a disaster. And the city of San Francisco has done a great deal to make the community safer. San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom has spearheaded an updated citywide emergency plan--the first time it has been done in 10 years. The San Francisco Fire Department offers training in disaster and emergency response for residents. Over 11,000 San Francisco residents have completed the course in the past 15 years. San Francisco has also invested $2.5 million in leading the development of a regional response plan with seven other bay area counties. This is one of the first regional response plans in the country. I commend the city and county of San Francisco on its efforts to ensure the city is ready to respond to a disaster. Having witnessed the slow response to Hurricane Katrina in the Gulf States, I wrote to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, in September asking for a copy of their disaster response plan for a serious earthquake in California. I am still waiting to receive their plan. Without the plan in hand, I remain very concerned that FEMA is not prepared should a major earthquake or natural disaster occur in California. It is very important that the State of California and its residents are working to prepare themselves for a major disaster. I have created a ``Getting Ready'' guide on my Senate Web site to help my constituents prepare their homes and families for a disaster. This guide is organized in easy-to-follow steps and provides links to other preparedness sites--www.boxer.senate.gov/equake.cfm. On the 100th anniversary of the Great San Francisco Earthquake and Fire, I rise to honor the memory of those who lost their lives during this disaster. I also pause to reflect on the tragedy that befell this great city and its citizens. The community came together to repair and restore the city, and today, San Francisco is one of the United States' top tourist destinations and a dynamic urban center. I also commemorate this anniversary by encouraging all of us to look forward and ensure our families are prepared for a major earthquake or similar disaster. I will continue fighting to ensure the Federal Government is taking the steps necessary to help our local communities in disaster response.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise to recognize the important work and accomplishments of the California Teamsters Hispanic Caucus. I am also pleased to commend International Brotherhood of Teamsters, IBT, General President James P. Hoffa, and General Secretary-Treasurer C. Thomas Keegel for their continued support of the California Teamsters Hispanic Caucus's efforts in awarding educational scholarships and conducting community improvement and community education programs. The California Teamsters Hispanic Caucus, formed in 1989 as a nonprofit organization, has experienced phenomenal growth and success. Since the Hispanic Caucus' early beginnings, membership has grown to include more than 250 active members. The support that the caucus has provided to its members has also grown throughout the years. In nearly two decades of service, the Hispanic Caucus has increased the number of its educational scholarships from 3 to nearly 20 and has distributed more than $200,000. Both General President Hoffa and General Secretary-Treasurer Keegel have shown tremendous support for the California Teamsters Hispanic Caucus through their involvement in increasing the availability of educational scholarship funding and participation in annual Hispanic Caucus events. Their work, in combination with the fine work of the Hispanic Caucus, has allowed the children of Teamsters to continue their education and pursue their dreams. I invite all of my colleagues to join me in commending the California Teamsters Hispanic Caucus, International Brotherhood of Teamsters General President James P. Hoffa and General Secretary-Treasurer C. Thomas Keegel for their continued support for education, for strong communities, and for all working people.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. If I can have 20 minutes following Senator Byrd, which we think will be used by other Senators on the same topic.

Mrs. BOXER. If I can be in that line.

Mrs. BOXER. I ask my colleague to make sure Senator Lautenberg knows my colleagues are willing to yield him 10 minutes upon my completion; is that correct?

Mrs. BOXER. Yes.

Mrs. BOXER. Oh, that is so nice.

Mrs. BOXER. I thank my friend and colleague, and really, in so many ways, our leader in the Senate, and say to him before he leaves the floor how much we stand with him on these mine safety questions. We Americans are just facing so many tragedies. My colleague reports on yet more deaths in the mines, deaths that are preventable if we do the right thing by our workers. We are mourning together today five more American soldiers killed in Iraq. We had an incident, a workplace killing in Santa Barbara where five or six people lay dead. It is tough times. But I want my good friend to know that we will stand with him on this mine safety question.

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I rise now to discuss an amendment on behalf of myself and Senators Kerry and Lautenberg, which expresses the sense of the Senate that the White House should provide the public with a thorough account of the meetings that the President, his staff, and senior executive branch officials held with Jack Abramoff. The public's confidence in the Government has been rocked, rocked by the widespread reports of public corruption involving Jack Abramoff. On January 3, Mr. Abramoff pleaded guilty to conspiracy, fraud, tax evasion charges, charges that carry up to a 30-year sentence. He agreed to cooperate with prosecutors in their investigation of a number of public officials, and we don't know where all this will lead. I urge the Justice Department to continue its investigation into any bribery and corruption. The damage to the public trust from the Abramoff scandal, combined with the recent prosecution of Congressman Randy Cunningham, and the indictment of Congressman Tom Delay is massive. The investigation by the Department of Justice has really just begun. But right now, sadly, there is a very low opinion of politicians, and trust must be restored with the American people. We cannot govern effectively without the support and confidence of the people. We are supposed to be their representatives. We owe them everything, and we must start with honesty, with ethics, so we can regain their trust. If the people have lost confidence, we have to win it back. Every Senator I know has searched his or her records for contributions from Jack Abramoff, from his associates and the tribes he represented. Each of us has responded in our own way. But to my knowledge, we have all made our actions public. We have told our constituents what the situation is and whether we plan to do something about it. In the State of the Union Address the President said: Each of us has made a pledge to be worthy of public responsibility--and that is a pledge we must never forget, never dismiss, and never betray. Those are noble sentiments, very noble sentiments, and I challenge the President to live up to them. Where there is an appearance of impropriety, it is the responsibility of public officials to be open with the public and to clear up any questions that might exist. I know in my long career in elected life, and it is now more than 30 years of elected life, I have had to return contributions from time to time. I have tried to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest. I have even recused myself on three occasions because I believed that was the right thing to do. But no matter what each of us does there will still be those who doubt us. It is the system. It is a system that is based on private financing, so it is very difficult, with that system, to gain the trust of the people. But it starts with openness. It starts with transparency. We should each try to be as open as we can and make sure that, whatever we decide to do, the public is informed. It doesn't help to be secretive. It doesn't help to say: I don't have to do this; it is my right not to tell the public anything. It may be your right, but it does not make it right. According to the press secretary of the President, Scott McClellan, the President does not know and doesn't remember ever meeting Jack Abramoff, and despite repeated requests the White House has failed to provide details of meetings between Jack Abramoff and the President and his staff. The problem is, more and more details keep coming out about the relationship between Mr. Abramoff and the President. Starting in 1997, Mr. Abramoff claimed credit for procuring a letter from then-Governor Bush that praised the then-Northern Marianas Island Education Plan. In 2000, Jack Abramoff joined the Bush-Cheney transition team. Several colleagues of Mr. Abramoff ended up being appointed to key positions in the Department of Interior, the agency that regulates Indian gaming issues, central to Mr. Abramoff's lobbying business. According to the Associated Press, Jack Abramoff and his lobbying team had nearly 200 contacts with the Bush administration in the first 10 months they were in office--200 contacts in less than a year, and nobody remembers anything? I mean it doesn't pass the smell test, to be crude about it. By 2001, Mr. Abramoff appears to have been selling his clients access to the President. On May 9, 2001, the White House arranged an event on behalf of the group Americans for Tax Reform. That group is a very strong ally of President Bush. The event was attended by the President and a number of legislators. There is a trail of documents that shows that Mr. Abramoff asked some of his clients for $25,000 to go to that event, with the funds going to this Americans for Tax Reform. I want to show you some e-mails because I think that tells the story better than anything. So here is what Mr. Abramoff asked in an e-mail to a representative of one of his tribal clients. These are Mr. Abramoff's words from an e-mail. Americans for Tax Reform is bringing together the speakers of all Republican-led legislatures for a meeting with Bush and the congressional leadership. They have requested sponsorship ($25 K) from only four groups. Two of them will be major corporations and one will be Choctaw. Chief Martin will be coming to the event I expect. I told them that I would ask you guys to participate. The exposure would be incredible and would be very helpful. One of the things we need to do is get the leaders of the tribe (ideally the chief) in front of the President as much as possible. Please let me know as soon as you can. Thanks. That is Mr. Abramoff to the representative of one of the tribes. Let us see what that particular individual wrote to her tribe after she received Mr. Abramoff's e-mail. She wrote: Attached is an e-mail from Jack Abramoff with the firm of Greenberg & Traurig. The chairman has agreed for the tribe to be one of the four sponsors of and participate in a White House event on behalf of the Americans for Tax Reform which is being held on May, 9, 2001 in D.C. Please immediately prepare a check made payable to Americans for Tax Reform in the amount of $25,000 and forward it to my office by Federal Express. Then Fed/Ex the check to Mr. Abramoff. Just to finish this story, here we have a copy of the check Mr. Abramoff received from the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana in the amount of $25,000--selling the President of the United States and using Federal property. The meeting was held in the Old Executive Office Building. In all, it appears that four or more of Abramoff's clients attended the event, and at least two claimed they paid the $25,000 requested. They paid that to get close to the President on Federal property. Jack Abramoff, as I said, delivered the President of the United States in exchange for his clients' contribution to the President's supporters. How many more Abramoff clients attended is not clear, and who paid money to attend the White House event is not clear. The White House claims it has no record of Mr. Abramoff attending, but Time magazine claims there is a photo of the President standing with Abramoff and one of Abramoff's clients. This event alone warrants the President providing full disclosure of meetings with White House officials and Jack Abramoff. But this was not a one-time event. The following year, Mr. Abramoff solicited money from his clients for another White House event in behalf of Americans for Tax Reform. The public has more and more questions about the relationship between Jack Abramoff, the President, and his staff, but no answers are forthcoming. The President's refusal to provide additional information about these meetings has increased the public's distrust in the administration and our Government at large. The President said some very noble words at the State of the Union Address. He said it was important for us to bring trust back. Yet we see no movement for transparency and openness. The public has a right to know whom Mr. Abramoff met with, what they discussed, and whether improprieties existed. According to a Washington Post/ABC News poll, 76 percent said Bush should disclose his contacts with his aides and Mr. Abramoff. Two of three Republicans favored disclosure. Let me say that again. In the poll, two of three Republicans favored disclosure. In fact, members of the President's own party in the Senate and in the House have urged the President to provide information to the public about this administration's dealings with Mr. Abramoff. I agree with them. All Government officials who serve the public must take all steps necessary to maintain their trust and confidence. I hope my colleagues will support this important amendment which I plan to offer on behalf of Senator Kerry and Senator Lautenberg. It simply calls on the White House to immediately and publicly disclose each visit and meeting between Jack Abramoff and the President, White House staff, or senior executive branch officials. Much is made about how Senators get an opportunity to fight for funds for their State. Senator McCain has derided this action. Senator McCain said earmarks right on their face are wrong. If you look at the number of earmarks Members of the Senate are involved in for our States--I know my colleague and I sit on the Public Works Committee. I don't need any lobbyist to tell me that I need a road in my urban area when one is broken down. I don't need a lobbyist to tell me that I need an HOV lane or a new water system or a new sewer system or a new school or a new senior center. It is my job to know that. Senator McCain thinks that is all terrible. But the bottom line is the number of earmarks pales in comparison with the amount of funds that are distributed by this administration and any subsequent or prior administration. They distribute most of the funds. It is very important, as we all look at our campaign contributions, to sort out in any of them which are in any way tainted by Mr. Abramoff and that the White House comes to the table and is as open as we have been. I believe it is very important. This isn't a partisan issue. Republicans have been calling for the White House to come clean on this, and Democrats are doing the same. If we are going to restore confidence in our Government, it starts with simple openness, not saying: Oh, this is privileged, this is secret. I will tell you right now, we all learned it from our moms and dads. When somebody says, this is secret, watch out. Our Government is supposed to be open, not secret. I hope there will be strong support for this particular amendment. I believe its timing is crucial. We can't let any more time elapse. There are calls for--and I am joining them--a special prosecutor in this particular case. But even before that debate begins, let us have everyone come clean on these meetings, contributions, and the like. I thank my colleague from Montana, the ranking member of the Finance Committee, for his generosity of spirit in allowing me to discuss this issue. Technically, of course, it isn't a matter of the Finance Committee jurisdiction, but I believe the timing is so important that we should have a vote on this. Thank you very much. I yield back whatever time remains.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I rise to pay tribute to 15 young Americans who have been killed in Iraq since December 9. This brings to 523 the number of soldiers who were either from California or based in California that have been killed while serving our country in Iraq. This represents 23 percent of all U.S. deaths in Iraq. LCpl Samuel Tapia, age 20, died December 18 from small-arms fire while conducting combat operations in Ar Ramadi. He was assigned to the 3rd Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, Twentynine Palms, CA. During Operation Iraqi Freedom, his unit was attached to the 2nd Marine Division. SGT Regina C. Reali, age 25, died December 23 in Baghdad when an improvised explosive device detonated near her humvee. She was assigned to the Army Reserve's 351st Civil Affairs Command, Mountain View, CA. She was from Fresno, CA. SGT Cheyenne C. Willey, age 36, died December 23 in Baghdad when an improvised explosive device detonated near his humvee. He was assigned to the Army Reserve's 351st Civil Affairs Command, Mountain View, CA. He was from Fremont, CA. SPC Sergio Gudino, age 22, died December 25 in Baghdad when an improvised explosive device detonated near his M1A1 tank during combat operations. He was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 64th Armor Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division, Fort Stewart, GA. He was from Pomona, CA. SPC Marcelino R. Corniel, age 23, died December 31 in Baghdad when an enemy mortar attack occurred in the vicinity of his observation post. He was assigned to the Army National Guard's 1st Battalion, 184th Infantry Regiment, Fullerton, CA. He was from La Puente, CA. PVT Robbie M. Mariano, age 21, died January 5 in An Najaf when an improvised explosive device detonated near his humvee during convoy operations. He was assigned to the 3rd Battalion, 16th Field Artillery, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, Fort Hood, TX. He was from Stockton, CA. SGT Adam L. Cann, age 23, was killed in action on January 5 by a suicide bomb attack on an Iraqi police recruitment center in Ar Ramadi. He was assigned to Security Battalion, Camp Pendleton, CA. During Operation Iraqi Freedom, his unit was attached to the 2nd Marine Division. MAJ Douglas A. La Bouff, age 36, died January 7 near Tal Afar when his UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter crashed. He was assigned to the Army's 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, Fort Carson, CO. He was from La Puente, CA. LCpl Raul Mercado, age 21, died January 7 when his vehicle was attacked with an improvised explosive device while conducting combat operations near Al Karmah. He was assigned to 2nd Maintenance Battalion, 2nd Marine Logistics Group, Camp Lejeune, NC. He was from Monrovia, CA. CPL Justin J. Watts, age 20, died January 14 from an apparent nonhostile gunshot wound in Haditha. His death is currently under investigation. He was assigned to the 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, Camp Pendleton, CA. During Operation Iraqi Freedom, his unit was attached to the 2nd Marine Division. CWO3 Rex C. Kenyon, age 34, died January 16 in Baghdad when his Apache helicopter was shot down while conducting aerial patrols. He was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 4th Aviation Regiment (Attack), Combat Aviation Brigade, 4th Infantry Division, Fort Hood, TX. He was from El Segundo, CA. CPL Carlos Arrelanopandura, age 22, died January 20 from a suicide vehicle-borne improvised explosive device while conducting combat operations in Haqlaniyah. He was assigned to the 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, Camp Pendleton, CA. During Operation Iraqi Freedom, his unit was attached the 2nd Marine Division. He was from Los Angeles, CA. LCpl. Brandon Dewey, age 20, died January 20 from a suicide vehicle- borne improvised explosive device while conducting combat operations in Haqlaniyah. He was assigned to the 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, Camp Pendleton, CA. During Operation Iraqi Freedom, his unit was attached to the 2nd Marine Division. He was from San Joaquin, CA. SGT David L. Herrera, age 26, died January 28 in Baghdad when an improvised explosive device detonated near his humvee during combat operations. He was assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 506th Infantry Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne Division, Fort Campbell, KY. He was from Oceanside, CA. LCpl Hugo R. Lopezlopez, age 20, died January 27 at Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio from wounds sustained from an improvised explosive device while conducting combat operations against enemy forces in Rawah, Iraq on November 20, 2005. He was assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 11th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, Camp Pendleton, CA. During Operation Iraqi Freedom, his unit was attached to the 2nd Marine Division. He was from La Habra, CA. Mr. President, 523 soldiers who were either from California or based in California have been killed while serving our country in Iraq. I pray for these young Americans and their families.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am deeply saddened to inform you of the passing of Bill Robertson, former secretary treasurer for the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO. I would like to take a few moments to recognize Bill Robertson's many important accomplishments and the tremendous impact he made on the labor movement. Born in St. Paul, MN, Bill Robertson was a man with humble beginnings. He lost both his parents when he was a child and lived in an orphanage for a brief period. Growing up in difficult circumstances in the middle of the Great Depression shaped Bill's social and personal beliefs. He intimately understood the struggle that working men and women faced to achieve dignity in the United States. Bill led the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor for nearly two decades. During his tenure, he fought for the rights of working people with passion and great success. In 1975, Bill Robertson became secretary-treasurer for the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO. Under his leadership, The Los Angeles County Federation of Labor saw phenomenal growth. He coordinated many successful labor rights victories and spent a great deal of time building the labor movement and fighting for fairness and equality. In addition to his efforts to further the labor movement, Bill Robertson took steps to assist the city of Los Angeles' homeless population. In the winter of 1985, the city of Los Angeles had authorized a temporary tent shelter to be erected for the city's homeless population. Bill Robertson found this solution to be inadequate and successfully persuaded then Mayor Tom Bradley to authorize construction of a temporary structure to house the 138-bed shelter. Bill Robertson rallied volunteer laborers and secured union funds to buy the construction materials. Bill also played a major role in bringing prominence and recognition to the city of Los Angeles. In addition to assisting city officials with securing the rights to host the 1984 Olympic Games, Bill also played a pivotal role in establishing a home for a professional football team in Los Angeles. It was through his role as chief negotiator in the $6.7-million deal in 1980 that brought the Raiders football team from Oakland to the Los Angeles Coliseum. Bill Robertson considered this achievement as one of the proudest of his career. I invite all of my colleagues to join me and the many members of the labor community in recognizing and honoring Bill Robertson for his guidance and lifelong effort in fighting to improve the lives of working people. He is survived by his wife, Dresden Graham Robertson; his two sons, William and Robert; three grandchildren; and four great- grandchildren.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am deeply saddened to inform you of the passing of Judge William Matthew Byrne, Jr. I would like to take a few moments to recognize Judge Byrne's many important accomplishments and the tremendous impact he made on the judicial system. William Byrne was born in East Los Angeles in 1930 and attended Loyola High School and the University of Southern California. Before becoming a Federal prosecutor in Los Angeles, he served as a judge advocate from 1956 to 1958 in the U.S. Air Force. In 1967, he was appointed as U.S. attorney by President Lyndon B. Johnson. In 1970, when President Richard Nixon created the President's Commission on Campus Unrest, he chose William Byrne as its executive director. Byrne became the youngest judge ever appointed to the Federal bench when he was confirmed in 1971 at age 40, and he served as the Central District's chief judge from 1994 to 1998. In more than 30 years of service on the Federal bench, Judge Byrne had the opportunity to handle many cases. He is, however, best known for presiding over the Pentagon Papers case, which was assigned to him just 2 years after his confirmation as a Federal judge. The Pentagon Papers case involved military analyst Daniel Ellsberg and co-defendant Anthony J. Russo, Jr. who were indicted on 12 Federal counts, including conspiracy, theft of Government property, and espionage after an unauthorized release of a secret study of U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. Judge Byrne dismissed the case in 1973 after ruling that it was the Government that was guilty of misconduct. I invite all of my colleagues to join me in recognizing and honoring Judge William Matthew Byrne, Jr., for his long and distinguished service to our country.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I wish to amend the unanimous consent agreement to add an additional 10 minutes for Senator Baucus, which will give him 30 minutes.

Mrs. BOXER. Certainly. I ask that at the conclusion of Senator Biden's remarks, Senator Inhofe be recognized for up to an hour.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I was listening to the Senator from South Carolina. I thought he was going to make some comments about the vote that just took place on one of the most important issues facing the Senate. Instead, he launched into an attack on Senator Harry Reid. Shakespeare once said something to this effect: When someone acts that way, he is protesting too much. So Senator Reid must have hit a chord with the Senator from South Carolina, and there are reasons for it. Senator Reid speaks straight from the heart, straight from the shoulder. He is fighting for the American people. He wants us to fix the mess this President and this Congress made in the Medicare prescription drug benefit. He wants us to take care of our men and women in uniform. He wants to make sure the budgets are balanced. He wants to make sure that our families have health care, that we are moving forward on homeland security, and cleaning up the culture of corruption which has been brought to us by the ruling party. Remember, we have one party that rules Washington. So I think his remarks must have deeply touched the Senator from South Carolina for him to launch into such a personal attack on the Democratic leader. I stand here and say: Keep it up, Senator Reid. You must be doing something right to elicit that kind of outrageous response. Mr. President, many of us have been in elected life for more than a decade--in my case, three decades--and we know that when certain issues come before us, they are so profound, they are so important to the people we represent, they are such a watershed that they need to be marked, not rushed. The vote on Samuel Alito to be a Justice of the Supreme Court is such a moment in our history. Yes, we are having two votes on this nomination, one just completed, which gave me and other opponents of the nomination an opportunity to signal that this nomination should be sent back to the President for a mainstream nominee in the mold of Sandra Day O'Connor. We fell short of the 41 votes we needed to send this nomination back. But yet I am still glad I had the opportunity to go on record twice. And do you know why? Because the Supreme Court belongs to the people of America. It is their court. It is not George Bush's court. It is not any Senator's court. It is the people's court, and the highest court. It is their freedoms that are at stake, their protection from a power- hungry Executive, their right to clean air, to clean water, and safe communities, their right to make private decisions with their families, not with Senators and Congressmen and a President or Vice President breathing down their necks. So although we knew the votes were not there for the filibuster of Judge Alito, we felt it was appropriate to use that historic Senate debate tool so the American people would know that we were willing to pursue even a losing effort because the stakes are so high. Tomorrow, we will cast our votes on the nomination itself, and I want the record to reflect why I will be voting no. Mr. President. Every judicial nomination is important, but rarely are the stakes as high for the Nation as they are in the case of the nomination of Samuel Alito to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. We now have a divided Court, a divided Congress, and a divided electorate, as evidenced in the last two Presidential elections. Unfortunately, we also have a President who failed to remember his promise, which he made in the campaign of 2000: to govern from the center--to be ``a uniter, not a divider.'' If he had kept that promise, he would not have nominated Samuel Alito. Judge Alito was nominated to take the seat of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the first woman on the Court. She has long been the swing vote, and a commonsense voice of moderation, in some of the most important cases to come before the Court, including a woman's right to choose, civil rights, and freedom of religion. The right thing to do for the court and for the Nation would have been to nominate someone in the mold of Justice O'Connor, and that is what the President should have done. Let me be clear: I do not deny Judge Alito's judicial qualifications. He is experienced, intelligent, and capable. His family should be proud of him, and all Americans should be proud that the American dream was there for him and for the Alito family. But these facts do not outweigh my deep conviction that Judge Alito's extreme views of the law make him the wrong person for this job. As a Senator, I have no more solemn duty than to vote on a nomination for the Supreme Court of the United States. These are lifetime appointments, with extraordinary power to shape the law of the land, and to affect the lives of Americans, not just those living now, but for generations to come. In the 218 years since our Constitution was adopted, our Nation has made great strides toward achieving the more perfect Union that the Founding Fathers dreamed of Women were given the right to vote. African-Americans were given civil rights. A right to personal privacy has been recognized for women and families. The accused have a right to counsel. Congress has been recognized to have the power to enact laws protecting the health and safety of the people. This has led to a cleaner environment, safer workplaces and communities, and better health care for all Americans. We who have enjoyed the fruits of this progress owe it to future generations not to let it slip away. Thus, in a vote such as this, which will have long lasting effects, it is incumbent on us to consider what those effects might be. If Judge Alito is confirmed, he will join the far right wing of the Court now led by Justices Scalia and Thomas. Should their extreme views of the Constitution ultimately prevail--as they may well do in the very near future--I fear they will take our Nation on a backward path-- toward a time of fewer rights for individuals and greater restrictions on Congress's ability to protect the public health and welfare. In addition, I believe that Judge Alito will support Justice Thomas's radical ideas about stronger Presidential powers. In short, our children could end up living in a very different America from the one we treasure. What kind of Nation would that be? Abortion undoubtedly would be illegal in many States. Dangerous automatic weapons might become broadly available. It might be almost impossible to get a claim of workplace discrimination to a jury. Search warrants might not have to be issued, or if they were, wouldn't have to be specific. The Nation's most important environmental laws might be made toothless for lack of enforcement in the courts. Trial by jury, one of the most precious of all rights guaranteed to Americans by their Constitution, could be tainted by racism in the selection of Jurors. This is a harsh picture, but I believe it is not unrealistic. If you consider where the Court is now and consider Judge Alito's record and views carefully, you must conclude, as I did, that approving his nomination could have dire consequences for our Nation. In reviewing Judge Alito's record, I asked myself whether, as a Supreme Court Justice, he would be likely to vote to preserve fundamental American liberties, values, and interests for all the people. Would Justice Alito vote to uphold Congress's constitutional authority to pass laws to protect Americans' health, safety, and welfare? The record says no. When his Third Circuit Court of Appeals voted to uphold a ban on machine gun possession, Judge Alito voted to strike it down because he said Congress lacked the power to enact such a law. His colleagues on the court criticized him, saying his position ran counter to ``a basic tenet of the constitutional separation of powers.'' Would Justice Alito vote to protect the right to privacy, especially a woman's reproductive freedom? Judge Alito's record says no. We have all heard about Judge Alito's 1985 job application which he wrote that the Constitution does not protect the right of a woman to choose. When given the chance to disavow that position during the hearings, he refused to do so. He had the chance to say, as Judge Roberts did, that Roe v. Wade is settled law, and he refused. When given the chance to explain his dissent in the Casey decision, in which he argued that the Pennsylvania spousal notification requirement was not an undue burden on a woman seeking an abortion because it would affect only a small number of women, he refused to back away from his position. The Supreme Court, by a 5 to 4 vote, found the provision to be unconstitutional, and Justice O'Connor, cowriting for the Court, criticized the faulty analysis supported by Judge Alito, saying that ``the analysis does not end with the one percent of women'' affected. ``it begins there.'' Judge Alito's ominous statements and narrow-minded reasoning clearly signal a hostility to women's rights, and portend a move back toward the dark days when abortion was illegal in many States, and many women died as a result. In the 21st century, it is astounding that a nominee for the Supreme Court would not view Roe v. Wade as settled law. The fundamental principle of Roe--a woman's right to make reproductive choices for herself--has been reaffirmed many times since it was decided. Would Justice Alito vote to protect Americans from illegal searches in violation of the fourth amendment? Judge Alito's record says no. In a 2004 case, he found that a police strip search of a 10-year-old girl was lawful, even though she was not named in the warrant. Judge Alito said that even if the warrant did not actually authorize the search of the girl, ``a reasonable police officer could certainly have read the warrant as doing so . . .'' This cavalier attitude toward one of our most basic constitutional guarantees--the fourth amendment right against unreasonable searches-- is stunning. As Judge Alito's own court said regarding warrants, ``a particular description is the touchstone of the fourth Amendment.'' Americans have reason to fear a Supreme Court justice who does not understand this fundamental constitutional protection. Would Justice Alito vote to let citizens stop companies from polluting their communities? The record says no. In a case involving toxic discharges into a major river, Judge Alito voted to stop citizens from taking the polluting company to court, as they were authorized to do under the Clean Water Act. Fortunately, in another case several years later, the Supreme Court overturned Alito's narrow reading of the law. Would Justice Alito vote to let working women and men have their day in court against employers who discriminate against them? Judge Alito's record says no. In a 1997 case, Judge Alito was the only judge to say that a hotel employee claiming racial discrimination could not take her case to a jury. His colleagues on the court said that if his standard for getting to a jury were required of a plaintiff, it would ``eviscerate'' title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination in the workplace. In another case, a female employee sued for discrimination, alleging that after she complained about incidents of sexual harassment, she was demoted and marginalized to the point that she was forced to quit. By a vote of 10 to 1, the Third Circuit found for the plaintiff. Guess who was the one? Only Judge Alito thought the employee should have to show that discrimination was the main cause of the employer's action. Using his standard would make it almost impossible for a woman claiming discrimination in the workplace to get to trial. Would Justice Alito be an effective check on an overreaching executive branch? Judge Alito's record says no. As a Judiciary Department lawyer, Alito wrote a memorandum proposing that the President assert his own interpretations of statutes by issuing ``signing statements'' when the laws are enacted. He said this would give the Executive ``the last word'' on interpreting the laws. The administration is now asserting vast powers, including spying on American citizens without seeking warrants, in clear violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, violating international treaties, and ignoring laws that ban torture. We need Justices who will put a check on such overreaching by the Executive, not rubberstamp it. Judge Alito's record and his answers at the hearings raise very serious doubts about his commitment to being a strong check on an ``imperial President.'' During the hearings, we all felt great compassion for Mrs. Alito when she became emotional in reaction to the tough questions her husband faced in the Judiciary Committee. Everyone in politics knows how hard it is for families when a loved one is asked tough questions. It is part of a difficult process, and whoever said politics is not for the faint of heart was right. Emotions have run high during this process. That is understandable. But I wish the press had focused more on the tears of those who will be affected if Judge Alito becomes Justice Alito and his extreme views prevail. I worry about the tears of a worker who, having failed to get a promotion because of discrimination, is denied the opportunity to pursue her claim in court. I worry about the tears of a woman who is forced by law to tell her husband that she wants to terminate her pregnancy and is afraid that he will leave her or stop supporting her. I worry about the tears of a young girl who is strip searched in her own home by police who have no valid warrant. I worry about the tears of a mentally retarded man who has been brutally assaulted in the workplace, when his claim of workplace harassment is dismissed by the court simply because his lawyer failed to file a well-written brief on his behalf. These are real cases in which Judge Alito has spoken. Fortunately, his views did not prevail in these cases. But if he sits on the Supreme Court, he will have a much more powerful voice. His voice that will replace one of moderation and balance, and he will join the voices of other Justices who share his severe views. Perhaps the most important statement Judge Alito made during the entire hearing process was when he told the Judiciary Committee that he expects to be the same kind of Justice on the Supreme Court as he has been a judge on the Circuit Court. That is precisely the problem. As a judge, Samuel Alito seemed to approach his cases with an analytical coldness that reflected no concern for the human consequences of his reasoning. Listen to what he said about a case involving an African-American man convicted of murder by an all white jury in a courtroom where the prosecutors had eliminated all African-American jurors in many previous murder trials as well. Judge Alito dismissed this evidence of racial bias and said that the jury makeup was no more relevant than the fact that lefthanders have won five of the last six Presidential elections. When asked about this analogy during the hearings, he said it ``went to the issue of statistics . . . (which) is a branch of mathematics, and there are ways to analyze statistics so that you draw sound conclusions from them. . . .'' That response would have been appropriate for a college math professor, but it is deeply troubling from a potential Supreme Court Justice. As the great Jurist and Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. wrote in 1881: The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience . . . The law embodies the story of a nation's development through many centuries, and it cannot be dealt with as if it contained only the axioms and corollaries of a book of mathematics. What Holmes meant is that the law is a living thing, that those who interpret it must do so with wisdom and humanity, and with an understanding of the consequences of their judgments for the lives of the people they affect. It is with deep regret that I conclude that Judge Alito' s judicial philosophy lacks this wisdom, humanity, and moderation. He is simply too far out of the mainstream in his thinking. His opinions demonstrate neither the independence of mind nor the depth of heart that I believe we need in our Supreme Court Justices, particularly at this crucial time in our Nation's history. That is why I must oppose this nomination.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will not object, would my friend extend his unanimous consent request to include the following Democratic Members: Senator Boxer for 20 minutes, Senator Baucus for 20 minutes, Senator Dodd for 20 minutes, and Senator Biden for 5 minutes.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, yesterday in Burbank, CA, I gave a major address before my constituents announcing my opposition to the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court of the United States. Today I am announcing my opposition to the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court of the United States. According to article II of the Constitution, Justices of the Supreme Court may not be appointed by the President without the advice and consent of the Senate. So it is our solemn duty to consider each nomination carefully, keeping in mind the interests of the American people. This nomination is particularly crucial because the stakes have rarely been so high. First, consider the context in which this nomination comes before us. The seat that Judge Alito has been nominated for is now held by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who came to the Court in 1981. For years, Justice O'Connor has provided the tie-breaking vote and a commonsense voice of reason in some of the most important cases to come before the Court, including a woman's right to choose, civil rights, and freedom of religion. Second, consider the tumultuous political climate in our Nation. President Bush understood that in 2000 when he promised to govern from the center, and be ``a uniter, not a divider.'' Sadly, this nomination shows that he has forgotten that promise because it is not from the center and it is not uniting the Nation. The right thing to do would have been to give us a justice in the mold of Justice O'Connor, and that is what the President should have done. Let me be clear: I do not deny Judge Alito's judicial qualifications. He has been a government lawyer and judge for more than 20 years and the American Bar Association rated him well qualified. He is an intelligent and capable person. His family should be proud of him and all Americans should be proud that the American dream was there for the Alito family. But after reviewing the hearing record and the record of his statements, writings and rulings over the past 24 years, I am convinced that Judge Alito is the wrong person for this job. I am deeply concerned about how Justice Alito will impact the ability of other families to live the American dream to be assured of privacy in their homes and their personal lives, to be secure in their neighborhoods, to have fair treatment in the workplace, and to have confidence that the power of the executive branch will be checked. As I reviewed Judge Alito's record, I asked whether he will vote to preserve fundamental American liberties and values. Will Justice Alito vote to uphold Congress's constitutional power to pass laws to protect Americans' health, safety, and welfare? Judge Alito's record says no. In the 1996 Rybar case, Judge Alito voted to strike down the Federal ban on the transfer or possession of machine guns because he believed it exceeded Congress's power under the Commerce Clause. His Third Circuit colleagues sharply criticized his dissent and said that it ran counter to ``a basic tenet of the constitutional separation of powers.'' And Judge Alito's extremist view has been rejected by six other circuit courts and the Supreme Court. Judge Alito stood alone and failed to protect our families. In a case concerning worker protection, Judge Alito was again in the minority when he said that Federal mine health and safety standards did not apply to a coal processing site. He tried to explain it as just a ``technical issue of interpretation.'' I fear for the safety of our workers if Judge Alito's narrow, technical reading of the law should ever prevail. Will Justice Alito vote to protect the right to privacy, especially a woman's reproductive freedom? Judge Alito's record says no. We have all heard about Judge Alito's 1985 job application, in which he wrote that the Constitution does not protect the right of a woman to choose. He was given the chance to disavow that position during the hearings and he refused to do so. He had the chance to say, as Judge Roberts did, that Roe v. Wade is settled law, and he refused. He had the chance to explain his dissent in the Casey decision, in which he argued that the Pennsylvania spousal notification requirement was not an undue burden on a woman seeking an abortion because it would affect only a small number of women, but he refused to back away from his position. The Supreme Court, by a 5 to 4 vote, found the provision to be unconstitutional, and Justice O'Connor, co-writing for the Court, criticized the faulty analysis supported by Judge Alito, saying that ``the analysis does not end with the one percent of women'' affected . . . ``it begins there.'' To my mind, Judge Alito's ominous statements and narrow-minded reasoning clearly signal a hostility to women's rights, and portend a move back toward the dark days when abortion was illegal in many states, and many women died as a result. In the 21st century, it is astounding that a Supreme Court nominee would not view Roe v. Wade as settled law when its fundamental principle a woman's right to choose-- has been reaffirmed many times since it was decided. Will Justice Alito vote to protect Americans from unconstitutional searches? Judge Alito's record says no. In Doe v. Groody in 2004, he said a police strip search of a 10-year- old girl was lawful, even though their search warrant didn't name her. Judge Alito said that even if the warrant did not actually authorize the search of the girl, ``a reasonable police officer could certainly have read the warrant as doing so . . .'' This casual attitude toward one of our most basic constitutional guarantees--the fourth amendment right against unreasonable searches--is almost shocking. As Judge Alito's own Third Circuit Court said regarding warrants, ``a particular description is the touchstone of the Fourth Amendment.'' We certainly do not need Supreme Court Justices who do not understand this fundamental constitutional protection. Will Justice Alito vote to let citizens stop companies from polluting their communities? Judge Alito's record says no. In the Magnesium Elektron case, Judge Alito voted to make it harder for citizens to sue for toxic emissions that violate the Clean Water Act. Fortunately, in another case several years later, the Supreme Court rejected the Third Circuit and Alito's narrow reading of the law. Judge Alito doesn't seem to care about a landmark environmental law. Will Justice Alito vote to let working women and men have their day in court against employers who discriminate against them? Judge Alito's record says no. In 1997, in the Bray case, Judge Alito was the only judge on the Third Circuit to say that a hotel employee claiming racial discrimination could not take her case to a jury. In the Sheridan case, a female employee sued for discrimination, alleging that after she complained about incidents of sexual harassment, she was demoted and marginalized to the point that she was forced to quit. By a vote of 10 to 1, the Third Circuit found for the plaintiff. Guess who was the one? Only Judge Alito thought the employee should have to show that discrimination was the ``determinative cause'' of the employer's action. Using his standard would make it almost impossible for a woman claiming discrimination in the workplace to get to trial. Finally, will Justice Alito be independent from the executive branch that appointed him, and be a vote against power grabs by the president? Judge Alito's record says no. As a lawyer in the Reagan Justice Department, he authored a memo suggesting a new way for the President to encroach on Congress's lawmaking powers. He said that when the President signs a law, he should make a statement about the law, giving it his own interpretation, whether it was consistent with what Congress had written or not. He wrote that this would ``get in the last word on questions of interpretation'' of the law. In the hearings, Judge Alito refused to back away from this memo. When asked whether he believed the President could invade another country, in the absence of an imminent threat, without first getting the approval of the American people, of Congress, Judge Alito refused to rule it out. When asked if the President had the power to authorize someone to engage in torture, Alito refused to answer. The administration is now asserting vast powers, including spying on American citizens without seeking warrants--in clear violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act--violating international treaties, and ignoring laws that ban torture. We need Justices who will put a check on such overreaching by the executive, not rubberstamp it. Judge Alito's record and his answers at the hearings raise very serious doubts about his commitment to being a strong check on an `imperial President.' In addition to these substantive matters, I remain concerned about Judge Alito's answers regarding his membership in the Concerned Alumni of Princeton and his failure to recuse himself from the Vanguard case, which he had promised to do. During the hearings, we all felt great compassion for Mrs. Alito when she became emotional in reaction to the tough questions her husband faced in the Judiciary Committee. Everyone in politics knows how hard it is for families when a loved one is asked tough questions. It is part of a difficult process, and whoever said politics is not for the faint of heart was right. Emotions have run high during this process. That is understandable. But I wish the press had focused more on the tears of those who will be affected if Judge Alito becomes Justice Alito and his out-of-the- mainstream views prevail. I worry about the tears of a worker who, having failed to get a promotion because of discrimination, is denied the opportunity to pursue her claim in court. I worry about the tears of a mentally ill woman who is forced by law to tell her husband that she wants to terminate her pregnancy and is afraid that he will leave her or stop supporting her. I worry about the tears of a young girl who is strip searched in her own home by police who have no valid warrant. I worry about the tears of a mentally retarded man, who has been brutally assaulted in his workplace, when his claim of workplace harassment is dismissed by the court simply because his lawyer failed to file a well-written brief on his behalf. These are real cases in which Judge Alito has spoken. Fortunately, he did not prevail in these cases. But if he goes to the Supreme Court, he will have a much more powerful voice--a radical voice that will replace a voice of moderation and balance. Perhaps the most important statement Judge Alito made during the entire hearing process was when he told the Judiciary Committee that he expects to be the same kind of Justice on the Supreme Court as he has been a judge on the Circuit Court. That is precisely the problem. As a judge, Samuel Alito seemed to approach his cases with an analytical coldness that reflected no concern for the human consequences of his reasoning. Listen to what he said about a case involving an African-American man convicted of murder by an all-White jury in a courtroom where the prosecutors had eliminated all African-American jurors in many previous murder trials as well. Judge Alito dismissed this evidence of racial bias and said that the jury makeup was no more relevant than the fact that left-handers have won five of the last six Presidential elections. When asked about this analogy during the hearings, he said it ``went to the issue of statistics . . . (which) is a branch of mathematics, and there are ways to analyze statistics so that you draw sound conclusions from them. . . .'' That response would have been appropriate for a college math professor, but it is deeply troubling from a potential Supreme Court Justice. As the great jurist and Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. wrote in 1881, ``The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience . . . The law embodies the story of a nation's development through many centuries, and it cannot be dealt with as if it contained only the axioms and corollaries of a book of mathematics.'' What Holmes meant is that the law is a living thing, that those who interpret it must do so with wisdom and humanity, and with an understanding of the consequences of their judgments for the lives of the people they affect. It is with deep regret that I conclude that Judge Alito's judicial philosophy lacks this wisdom, humanity and moderation. He is simply too far out of the mainstream in his thinking. His opinions demonstrate neither the independence of mind nor the depth of heart that I believe we need in our Supreme Court Justices, particularly at this crucial time in our Nation's history. That is why I will oppose this nomination.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to recognize the Chinese Lunar New Year. 2006 is the Year of the Dog. The Chinese calendar is based on the cycles of the sun and the moon, and the Chinese Lunar New Year is the most important of Chinese festivals. Celebration begins on the first day of the first moon of the lunar calendar and ends on the full moon 15 days later, with the Lantern Festival. In order to prepare for the new year, families perform several rituals to cleanse the home and the spirit, to sweep away misfortune and to welcome in the new year with good luck, health, happiness and prosperity. The Chinese lunar calendar is associated with a 12-year animal zodiac. According to ancient Chinese legend, Buddha asked all the animals to meet him on the Chinese Lunar New Year. Twelve animals came, and Buddha rewarded each animal by naming a year after each one. The 12 animals--Rat, Ox, Tiger, Rabbit, Dragon, Snake, Horse, Sheep, Monkey, Rooster, Dog and Pig--represent a cyclical concept of time. He told each animal that the people born in their year would inherit some of the personality traits of that animal. It is said that those born in the Year of the Dog tend to be loyal, kind, and generous. America is rich with the cultural traditions of many countries. In California, the Chinese-American community plays a vibrant and important part of our State's history. Celebrating the Chinese Lunar New Year allows us to embrace this significant and most important cultural festival of the Chinese calendar. I hope that the Chinese Lunar New Year brings good health, happiness, peace and prosperity to all. I give my very best wishes for an auspicious New Year.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, if this Senate is going to operate and function, it has to follow its own rules. It is very obvious that including drilling in a wildlife refuge in a military bill is not following our own rules. It is no wonder the people in the country are cynical. It is wrong to do this. Members should stand on line, do it the right way. If Members want a bill passed, do it the right way. This is not a Senate where one person can dictate how things get done. I hope the Senate would understand when you are discussing a wildlife refuge, which was first set aside by President Eisenhower, that we would do better than putting it into a military bill that is a must-pass piece of legislation. I am very pleased that Senator Stevens said if he does not get his way on this, and the Senate decides not to include it here, that we will be able to strip that provision and get those funds where they need to go, to our troops. I am very pleased about that. I hope the Senate will speak strongly in a bipartisan way and vote ``no'' on cloture. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I move to reconsider the vote.