Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I ask for 1 more minute, and then I will turn it over to my colleague from New York.

Mrs. BOXER. No, I will not. People for the American Way, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Planned Parenthood, Pride at Work, Progressive Jewish Alliance, the Sierra Club, Smoke Free Educational Services--this goes on--Taxpayers Against Fraud, United American Nurses. It goes on and on. There is more: the Wilderness Society, the Women's Leadership Alliance; the Members of the California delegation: the Honorable Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Lee--all the women of California who are on the Democratic side in the Congress. So you want to talk about it for 30 hours? We will talk. We will talk. This is from 102 law professors from across the United States on Judge Kuhl: Judge Kuhl has spent her entire professional life--in the Government, in private practice, and on the State bench-- aggressively promoting an extremist agenda that is hostile to women, minorities, injured workers, and the environment. Judge Kuhl's record goes back to when she worked in the Reagan administration and tried to persuade the Reagan administration to say that it was OK that Bob Jones University get a tax deduction. She was called part of a band of zealots who did that. So you want to talk about Judge Kuhl. I know her record inside out. I wanted to support a good woman from California. My whole life is spent promoting women but not women who would be hostile to other women and hostile to the guy who maybe needs to join an organization and perhaps get into a law suit. She does not even like the fact there are juries. She does not like the fact there are juries. So here we are. It is a quarter to 12 at night. I am all perky now. The reason is, I feel deeply about this. This is a chance to stand here and say, ``What are you doing?'' to the other side of aisle. You have 168. You did not get four. You are whining and you are complaining and you are crying and you are marching into the Senate and you are stopping progress. What about the millions of jobs that have been lost? Three million jobs lost, 2.6 million in manufacturing. Let's talk about that for 30 hours--instead of crying, crying about not getting 100 percent but only 98 percent of what you want.

Mrs. BOXER. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER. I am glad Senator Kyl brought up the Kuhl nomination because I will be talking a little bit about that nominee and her background and the number of people from all sides of the spectrum who oppose this nominee and the fact there is a very serious case involving a breast cancer patient who she ruled against in terms of her privacy rights. I will get into that. Judge Kuhl was overturned immediately. I will get into that and why it is we have taken a stand on a handful of these very extremist, very controversial judicial nominees. First, I remind us of the scorecard. If I were the Republicans and I got 168 of the judges I wanted and only was turned down for 4, I would do what my mother said when I was a kid: ``Honey, if you get 90 percent of what you want, say thank you, give the person a hug, and leave the room.'' Instead, what do we have? We do not have smiling, we do not have thank you's. We have 30 hours of wasted time to hear people complain and whine about the fact they did not get four. Somebody wrote a book once, called ``All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten.'' I honestly think this is the most childish situation. The President gets 168 and does not get 4 and his party is up in arms. How does that compare to President Clinton? Let's take a look at that. President Clinton had 63 nominees blocked, or 20 percent of his nominees. President Bush has, up to now, four--I suspect if we get these new two women we are talking about coming forward on Friday, hopefully, there will be six, but tonight there are four. That is 2 percent, and we have complaining going on. I do not get it. I feel like Barbara in Wonderland. It makes absolutely no sense. I cannot figure it out. It is like the kid who comes home from school and says to his dad, ``Dad, I got 98 percent; aren't you proud of me?'' Dad says, ``What happened to that other 2 percent?'' What is it about? We all learn to be gracious when we win. When we win 98 percent, we should be gracious. Here are the names of the Clinton nominees who were blocked. Fifteen times more judicial nominees blocked than that of President Bush. Why were they blocked? The other side felt, for whatever reason, maybe they did not feel they came from the mainstream. I remember speaking to Senator Hatch. He actually called me into his office. We had a very good talk. This is when he was chair of the Judiciary Committee and President Clinton was President. He said to me: ``I just want you to know, Barbara, if your side sends over from California liberal judges, they will never go anywhere. Do not send me liberal judges.'' I said: ``Orrin, I get it. I am a pragmatist. I have a committee advising me. I will so instruct them.'' We got almost all of our nominees through. When President Bush was elected, I said to Senator Hatch: ``I hope you are not going to send us rightwing nominees, because they are out of the mainstream and this President promised us mainstream nominees.'' Remember the night the Court decided he had won the election? The President came out--I will never forget it--we needed healing, and he came to the mike. It was very healing. He said: ``I will govern from the center. I am a uniter, not a divider.'' Yet we see some of these nominees who are coming down who are so far off to the right they are falling off the charts. I want to be clear. I want to say this unequivocally to my colleagues. I don't deserve to be here if I don't exercise the right given to me in the Constitution of the United States, which I revere. If I don't exercise that right, I do not deserve to be here. If I don't stand up and block some of these people, I do not deserve to be here. It is as simple as that. You can come to my State, you can call me every name in the book, it does not matter to me, because my constituents want me to stand up for what is right. What is right is to support mainstream candidates for the judiciary and stand up to extremist nominees and those who are out of the mainstream. I have to do it. It is my job. Do you want to come and talk about it for 30 hours when we could be doing other things? That is fine with me. I can talk about it for 630 hours. That is how strongly I feel in my heart about what we have done. What does the Constitution say about our job? The Constitution says: The President--that means this one and every other one--must seek the Senate's advice and consent. It does not say ``sometimes.'' It does not say ``usually.'' It does not say ``when you feel like it.'' It says very clearly, the President must seek the Senate's advice and consent. That does not mean notifying Senators, ``This is who we are coming up with.'' It means sitting down with us. It means talking to us. I have to say, this administration falls short. When Carolyn Kuhl was nominated, I said to Alberto Gonzales, the President's man on this, Give me some time. I wanted to support a woman for this judgeship. Members know my record. I said, Let me get back to you. Lo and behold, what did I find out? I want to tell you what I found out. First I found out about this case. Think of yourself as the woman in this circumstance, perhaps as her husband or as a relative. A woman had a mastectomy. It is a brutal operation. She is frightened. She is sick. She is going to the doctor for a followup exam. She is in the office. The doctor has another person in the office, dressed in a white coat, and the exam takes place. This other gentleman is leaning over this woman in one of the most embarrassing moments, her most frightened moments, her most humiliating moments, and he is fanning her. He is involved in this. He is staring at her the whole time. When she leaves the doctor's office on the way out, something did not feel right to her. She asks the receptionist, ``What doctor was that in the office with me?'' The receptionist said, ``That was no doctor; that was a drug salesman.'' The woman was appalled. A drug salesman had been in this room with her without her permission, without her knowledge. The bottom line of all of this, she sues. The case comes before Judge Kuhl, who is a new judge in the State. Judge Kuhl rules against this woman. The case is appealed and Carolyn Kuhl is overturned. Is this someone you think should be rewarded with a lifetime appointment? I say not. Let's see what the National Breast Cancer Coalition has written. This is a group that does not get involved in politics. This is a group that does not get involved. They were so upset, they said: We cannot afford to have Judge Kuhl on the court of appeals where she will have a greater effect on women with and at risk of breast cancer and our family and friends. The National Breast Cancer Coalition getting involved in a judicial nomination. I will tell you, if I did not stand up for the women across this country--how many of us get breast cancer? About one in nine. If I did not stand up for them, I do not deserve to be here. So if you want to talk about it for 30 hours, for 40 hours, for 50 hours, count me in--count me in--because if I were to roll over and allow someone such as that to get on the bench, someone who is hostile to women, someone who is hostile to civil rights, someone who is hostile to privacy rights, someone who is off the deep far right end of the spectrum, I do not deserve to be here because I promised my constituents I would support mainstream judges. I have supported many judges, 90 percent of the judges President Bush has brought forward. But once in a while you have to take a stand. Let's look at the number of groups that are against Carolyn Kuhl's nomination, which is going to be brought up on Friday. I cannot even read all of these to you. It would take too long. But I will give you a few: the AFL-CIO, the American Association of University Women, the American Federation of School Administrators, the Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance, Breast Cancer Action, the Breast Cancer Fund, the Women's Law Center, Clean Water Action, Communication Workers, Defenders of Wildlife, the Feminist Majority, the Foundation for a Smoke-Free America, Friends of the Earth, the International Federation of Professional Technical Engineers, Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, NARAL, Moveon.org, National Breast Cancer Coalition, National Center for Lesbian Rights, National Council of Jewish Women, National Employment Lawyers Association. It goes on and on and on, and there are reasons why these groups have gotten involved in this. Because all you have to do is see the record of this woman and you understand why these groups are against her. Office and Professional Employees International Union----

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

Mrs. BOXER. Let me quickly say about Judge Kuhl, Senator Hutchison said, in fact, that Judge Kuhl showed a lot of compassion to this victim who went into a doctor's office and was subjected to the humiliation of having a drug salesman witness her exam without her permission. Senator Hutchison said she was very, very kind to this victim. Let's see what the victim says about Judge Kuhl. My name is Azucena Sanchez-Scott. I am a survivor of breast cancer and Judge Kuhl's courtroom. I stand before you now because I want to tell my story so that other people will never have to relive it. Nothing about my cancer is easy. Not the chemotherapy, not the fear, and certainly not the emotional pain of disfigurement. As a person battling cancer each visit to the doctor brings questions about my future and my health. That is where I was when my doctor and a stranger walked in. The doctor offered no introduction and proceeded to examine me and asked that I disrobe. It was only when I left the office and inquired with the receptionist that I learned that the stranger was a sales representative for a drug company with no medical reason for being there. The bottom line, Carolyn Kuhl ruled against this woman, and when Senator Hutchison said she allowed the case of the doctor to go forward, that is what Judge Kuhl said. Then she retracted that and said: I made a mistake; I never had the doctor's case before me. So let's get the facts straight here. Why do you think we have three major breast cancer organizations--Breast Cancer Action, Breast Cancer Fund, the National Breast Cancer Coalition--asking us to defeat Carolyn Kuhl? Not because Carolyn Kuhl was compassionate. But because of the opposite reason: She turned her back on a woman in need, on a sick woman. And Carolyn Kuhl was overturned in a unanimous vote by the court of appeals. For that, my friends want to promote her to this lifetime appointment. I say if I caved in to that, again, I do not deserve to be here. Sometimes you have to stand up for people who need protection. Carolyn Kuhl had that chance. She took a hike. She ruled against this woman. This woman has been scarred in more ways than one from that experience. Here we are. It is 12:45. We could be working on issues that really matter to people instead of rehashing these judgeships. They got almost everything they wanted. But they are going to pound their fists and say the same thing over and over, ``This has never happened before''-- despite the fact it has and make it sound as if we are being unfair when we are not. We are just doing our job. But there we are. Look at what we could be doing. We have lost almost 3 million jobs in this country. This President has the worst record of any President since Herbert Hoover on private-sector employment. Why don't we spend 30 hours talking about that? Why don't we pass the 6-year highway bill? We got it out of our committee thanks to Senator Reid and Senator Inhofe today. Why not bring that bill down, I say to my friend, Senator Reid? Let's vote on the 6-year highway bill. Do you know how many jobs we would create in this country? In my State, 80,000 jobs. Let's pass a manufacturing jobs tax credit so that manufacturing stops leaving this country. Let's raise the minimum wage. I tried to do that by unanimous consent. The other side objected. They do not want to do that. With our salary, we make the minimum wage for a year in just a couple of months here. But no, they are spending 30 hours talking about 4 people who already have jobs and they do not want to talk about the 3 million jobs that were lost. They do not want to protect overtime. As a matter of fact, they tried to take it away from workers. They do not want to extend unemployment insurance. Nothing is getting done that really matters to people. That is a sad, sad situation. Long-term unemployment: These are the people who have been out there and out there--2 million, plus. That is a terrible record. Long-term unemployment tripled since George Bush took over. How about the tax cuts? Let's look at how fair they are. They are 80 times larger for millionaires than for middle income households earning about $50,000 to $75,000. The Bush economic record? The only administration going back to Eisenhower with a decline in manufacturing output--big manufacturing job losses. No, we cannot talk about that. We cannot have an action plan to get people back to work. And I have not even talked about school construction, which would really employ a lot of people. I visit some of my schools and the tiles are falling off the ceiling. No, we cannot talk about that. We do not have time. But we have time to discuss, for 30 hours, judgeships that we have gone over and over. And they are winning. They got 168 through and they did not get 4. They are worried about 4 people; I am worried about 3 million people. I am worried about the unemployed in my State, the people without health insurance. I will tell Members what else I am worried about. We have a President who has rolled back so many environmental laws--I have them on a scroll and I cannot show them because it is not allowed by the Senate rules. But I will hold this up. If I took this scroll and I rolled it across the Chamber, it would go from one end to the other. It goes on and on and on. It is small print. It shows all of the environmental rollbacks of this administration. Just 2 weeks ago they came up with an incredible idea. When there are PCBs on your land--those are the most toxic chemicals there are; they are carcinogens--we always had a rule if you had PCBs on your land you had to have a plan to clean it up and EPA had to oversee it. No. Gone. Now you can sell your land and God help the people who buy it with PCBs on it. Superfund under President Clinton, 80 sites a year we cleaned up--the most toxic sites. Now we are down to 40 a year. How about arsenic and playground equipment? In the latest hit of the administration, they announced they will allow the use of arsenic- treated lumber for playground equipment. Wake me up when this environmental nightmare is over. It is 12:35 in the morning and I can still feel it in my heart that we are doing the wrong thing tonight. Why not try to reverse this horrible record and protect our children and protect the health of our people and get our people working again? Instead, we are debating 168 to 4. I close with this, and I will probably dream about these numbers all night--what is left of the night. They got 168, and they did not get 4. They cannot accept the fact that 98 percent is pretty good. I don't know what else we are supposed to do, but I will say, whatever it takes, I will not be intimidated into voting for nominees that are so far right they would roll back the hands of time. They will not protect the health of the people, the privacy of the people, the safety of the people. I am not going to do that. I was sent here on a promise that I would stand up for the people of my State. That is what I intend to do. With 168 to 4, they ought to be smiling instead of whining. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Absolutely. I will show the number of women's organizations who oppose Carolyn Kuhl. I am glad the Senator raised this question. It is particularly interesting that today we have three women before the Senate. I say to my colleagues from both sides of the aisle, as a woman who has been in public life, actually elected to my first office in 1976, making sure that women have an equal opportunity, making sure that women move into positions of leadership has been one of the hallmarks of my career. Now we hear people on the other side saying anyone who votes against these women is not in favor of women. Let me state from the bottom of my heart--and I will get to that issue of privacy--the worst thing that can happen to the women of this country--to your daughters, to your nieces, to your aunts, to your grandmothers, for that matter, to your moms--the worst thing is to have a woman in power who rules against the interests of women. Carolyn Kuhl is one such woman. Janice Brown is one such woman. And Priscilla Owen. And those are the three who come before the Senate today in a package. Each of them, if you look at their decisions, has been hostile to women. I will talk about the Carolyn Kuhl case. Before Carolyn Kuhl, as a sitting State judge, comes a case in which a woman is explaining that she went to a physician for a followup mastectomy examination, a very humiliating, difficult, painful moment for that woman. That woman has written us and her story is in the Record. I have placed it in the Record. The woman simply said to Judge Kuhl: My privacy was violated because I went to my doctor and the doctor allowed in the room a drug salesman. The doctor did not ask me, the doctor never told me. This drug salesman was leaning over the table, was fanning this woman with a fan, was involved in this intimate exam. Every woman in this country knows that if that happened to them, they would be humiliated beyond belief. This woman had the courage to sue. Carolyn Kuhl ruled against the woman, and the excuse is, she allowed the case against the doctor to go forward. Untrue. That particular case never was before her. The issue was breach of privacy. She ruled against the woman. Carolyn Kuhl had to write an apology to the committee for misstating what actually had happened.

Mrs. BOXER. My friend is right.

Mrs. BOXER. Let me say that, fortunately, her decision was overruled unanimously by the State appellate court. This is the State appellate court. There are lots of Republicans on that court. They saw this was a terrible decision. Here is the list of women's groups against the nomination of Carolyn Kuhl. It includes Breast Cancer Action, Breast Cancer Fund--on and on-- Women's Leadership Alliance. And the same list--actually a few different names, for Janice Brown and for Priscilla Owen. These women do not care about women advancing. They have not cared about the equal rights of women. Let's have some backbone here and stand up when we think these nominees are good for the people and oppose them when we know they have been bad for the people and they will do worse yet.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank Senator Leahy for so many things. He has been so strong on this whole issue of making sure we do not put on the bench folks who are so outside the mainstream that they would set us back. Because you have a very strong position as a top Democrat, you have allowed to be approved 168 of George Bush's nominees. He has talked to us in depth, as well as other Members of the Judiciary Committee, about the four, up to now, who the Senator believes are far outside that mainstream. In order to protect the rights of our people, this is not some argument about a football game, that you are beating us 168 to 4. It is about protecting the people we represent, protecting their rights, protecting their health, making sure they are treated equally before the law. All the things that we as a great country, the greatest in the world, have given to our citizenry, could be overturned if we wind up having a court system that is radical and that moves away from those freedoms. So if nothing else, I hope people in America understand that the Republicans in the Senate are complaining because they did not get all of their President's nominees. So we have made the point over and over. Today, we are going to add two more, I believe, to this list and it will be 168 to 6, for a 97 percent success rate. Why are we doing that? Why do we think we are going to stop two of these candidates today-- actually, we have stopped a third before and we will do that again. Because they do not reflect the values of this country in their decisions. I could go over them one by one; I don't have the time to do that. And they would be dangerous. Here is the interesting thing. We have sitting in the committee two nominees who cleared the committee, Mark Filip and Gary Sharp, one from Illinois, one from New York, and all you have to do is bring those out. They have full support. You will be back up to 98 percent before the day's end. I say to my friends, I do not deserve to be a Senator if I do not exercise the power our Founders gave us explicitly in the Constitution, the power of advice and consent. It does not say sometimes advice and consent. It does not say maybe advice and consent. It does not say if you feel like it. It does not say if there is a Democrat in power or Republican. It says the Senate has the power to advise and consent. This does not mean rolling over for any Member. That is the key point. Do the people of America want a rubberstamp Senate or do they really want Senators who take their responsibility seriously and look at each nominee seriously? The power we were given is a very important power. I will explain that to the people of my State. If they want a Senator who will be a rubberstamp for a President of either party, they need to think long and hard about Senator Boxer because I am not their girl. I am not going to do that. That is not why I am here. So anyone reading the Constitution knows that Senator Leahy and members of the Judiciary Committee--and I see the Senator from Illinois here--they are just doing their job. The Republicans have spoken almost 40 hours. I lost track after 30 hours. They are telling us essentially: Don't do your job; be a rubberstamp. We are not going down that path. I am happy to yield.

Mrs. BOXER. Yes.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am pleased to announce the dedication of Squaw Valley Park in Placer County, CA. Two decades ago, the Placer County Board of Supervisors and local community partners began their search for an ideal site for a community park. Their final choice was Squaw Valley, located within the Tahoe National Forest. Squaw Valley, which is internationally renowned as the site of the 1960 VIII Winter Olympic Games, is one of the crown jewels of the Sierra Nevada. This park is also significant because its creation is the result of historic legislation, signed by President Clinton on July 29, 1998, allowing the U.S. Forest Service to conduct land transactions through sale rather than land exchange. I was proud to support this new approach because it saves taxpayers money through a much expedited transaction process. When completed next spring, Squaw Valley Park will provide an exceptional recreational environment in which local residents and visitors will be able to enjoy this breathtaking region of California. I commend all those who have made the dream of Squaw Valley Park a reality.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today is Veterans Day--a day to honor the service of those brave men and women who have fought for and defended our country. This Veterans Day has special meaning as 130,000 Americans are serving in Iraq, and many in this country have lost loved ones in Iraq in the past year. Americans can be proud of the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines who are serving today. They are continuing to show the courage, dignity, and bravery with which our veterans, who we honor today, have served in the past. That rich tradition includes those Americans who serve in the Guard and Reserves. In the 12 years since the first war in Iraq, more than 525,000 members of the Guard and Reserves have been mobilized--more than twice the number that were mobilized in the previous 36 years. When they are called up to active duty, they leave their civilian jobs--and their civilian salaries--behind. Most take a pay cut--and are glad to do so to serve our country. But when that active duty service becomes an extended tour of duty, the financial strain on the families left behind can be enormous. To close this pay gap, some State and local governments make up the different between military and civilian pay for their employees who have been activated. Unfortunately, with strains on State and local budgets across the country--as well as the increased demand for more police and firefighters to help fight terrorism and enhance our homeland security--such payments to our Guards and Reservists are a financially difficult option--or not an option at all--for most State and local governments. That is why I am today introducing the Service to the Country Reimbursement Act. Under my bill, the Federal Government would reimburse State and local governments for the costs of paying the different between the civilian salary and the military pay of a Guard or Reserves member who is activated for more than 30 days. This legislation will encourage State and local governments to make those payments in order to keep the families financially whole, ensuring that the families of those who serve our country in the Guards and Reserves will not be financially penalized because of the service being made to our country. I encourage my colleagues to join me in this effort. And I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today is Veterans Day--a day to honor the service of those brave men and women who have fought for and defended our country. This Veterans Day has special meaning as 130,000 Americans are serving in Iraq, and many in this country have lost loved ones in Iraq in the past year. Americans can be proud of the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines who are serving today. They are continuing to show the courage, dignity, and bravery with which our veterans, who we honor today, have served in the past. That rich tradition includes those Americans who serve in the Guard and Reserves. In the 12 years since the first war in Iraq, more than 525,000 members of the Guard and Reserves have been mobilized--more than twice the number that were mobilized in the previous 36 years. When they are called up to active duty, they leave their civilian jobs--and their civilian salaries--behind. Most take a pay cut--and are glad to do so to serve our country. But when that active duty service becomes an extended tour of duty, the financial strain on the families left behind can be enormous. To close this pay gap, some State and local governments make up the different between military and civilian pay for their employees who have been activated. Unfortunately, with strains on State and local budgets across the country--as well as the increased demand for more police and firefighters to help fight terrorism and enhance our homeland security--such payments to our Guards and Reservists are a financially difficult option--or not an option at all--for most State and local governments. That is why I am today introducing the Service to the Country Reimbursement Act. Under my bill, the Federal Government would reimburse State and local governments for the costs of paying the different between the civilian salary and the military pay of a Guard or Reserves member who is activated for more than 30 days. This legislation will encourage State and local governments to make those payments in order to keep the families financially whole, ensuring that the families of those who serve our country in the Guards and Reserves will not be financially penalized because of the service being made to our country. I encourage my colleagues to join me in this effort. And I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I wish to say a few words about Veterans Day, the day we honor millions who have served in our Armed Forces. We give thanks to those who risk their lives and, frankly, who are risking their lives as we speak. They have done it and they are doing it now out of love of country. We also mourn those who made the ultimate sacrifice for our Nation. As American casualties mount in Iraq, Veterans Day takes on a very special meaning. Many in our country have lost loved ones in Iraq, and every day we all pray for the safe return of our men and women in uniform. In my home State of California, we have lost 73 from California or based in California. The burden is heavy for their relatives--mothers, dads, children, friends. Yet we know they went over there, in many cases, following their families in a rich military tradition and, in some cases, because they wanted to stand up and be counted for their country. They have courage and dignity. It is our responsibility to only send them into harm's way when we know what we are doing; to only send them into harm's way when we have a plan; to only send them into harm's way when we have an exit strategy, and these are issues we will continue to work on because some of us, I am afraid, do not see that plan and do not see that exit strategy. I wish to say on a personal note that November 11 is also my birthday. I say that because as a child, I was so proud I was born on what was called Armistice Day because Armistice Day reflected a day of peace, the end of a war, the end of the war to end all wars, which World War I was known as. Unfortunately, it wasn't to be. There were more wars. In 1954, Congress changed the name of Armistice Day to Veterans Day to pay homage to all of our veterans. I regret I am not able to spend today with veterans in my State. I really had wanted to do that, but I do appreciate this opportunity to pay tribute to them on the floor of the Senate. One more point on veterans. Earlier today I introduced legislation to help our future veterans by reimbursing States and localities that continue to pay their government employees who are Guard and reservists--such as policeman and firefighters--when they are called to active duty. This legislation will go a long way to help the families of these Guard men and women and reservists make ends meet. In many cases, the local and State governments are paying their salaries and are falling behind. It seems to me that is the least we can do, is reimburse for those funds. I hope others will join me in this legislation. By the way, many of our States and counties and cities are already doing this, and their budgets are hurting. This is a war that was, in fact, voted on here and executed by the President. Therefore, it seems to me the least we can do is reimburse local agencies who are putting out the funding.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Yes, that is my clear understanding and the clear intent of the legislation. The bill lays out in great detail the serious threat Syrian actions pose to United States interests. Our expectation is that, unless the President can make the certification described in section 5, subsection (d) of the bill, he must impose sanctions on the Syrian Government. The national security waiver was only included to address currently unforeseen instances where U.S. national security interests would truly be threatened should such sanctions go forward. We expect the President to use the waiver only for such exceptional circumstances, and not on a routine basis as a way to circumvent congressional intent as so clearly expressed in the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003. Amendment No. 2148

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am very pleased we are going to vote on the Syria Accountability bill, a bill I first introduced with Senator Santorum in April of 2002. It has had a very bumpy ride. I am glad the ride will soon end smoothly; at least that is my sense. On April 18, 2002, with a list of 45 cosponsors, I introduced this bill with Senator Santorum. On that day, I said: We cannot afford to rest for one second in pursuing those who believe that purposely killing innocent civilians is a legitimate means to political ends. We cannot give concessions to terrorists nor can we reward them by giving into their demands. This will only lead to more terror. With that, Senator Santorum and I introduced the Syria Accountability Act because we knew at that time--and we know today--that by a variety of means the Government of Syria is supporting terrorist groups. It needs to end. In the 108th Congress, May 1, 2003, now with a total of 81 cosponsors, we introduced our bill again and at that time we said: If we are serious about peace in the Middle East and a cessation of terrorism here at home, then we must confront the Government of Syria in a way that will not lead to war but to a diffusing of tensions and a more peaceful world. The administration opposed our bill very strongly. In fact, Secretary Powell came before the Foreign Relations Committee and when Senator Lugar and Senator Biden said to him, do you support or oppose the Syria Accountability Act, Secretary Powell said it would not be helpful to pass it. I did not agree with him then and I do not agree with him now. When Secretary Powell went to see the head of Syria, what was one of the first things he said to him? He said, you ought to shape up because there is a bill in the Senate, the Syria Accountability Act, and those folks over there are serious. It proved my point that, in fact, for us to be tough on terrorism gives the State Department the backup they need. I think, frankly, it will be very helpful for us to pass this bill today. Now, the administration has moved off their opposition and they are neutral on this bill. They are neither for it nor against it. The good news is, the leaders of the Foreign Relations Committee, finally I think, have decided that maybe Boxer and Santorum have been on the right track. So this is a very big day for us because we have gone through a pretty tough legislative ride. We did not get hearings in the committee. We could not move it. In addition to Senator Santorum, my original cosponsor of this, I do want to thank Senator Byrd, who made suggestions to perfect our bill, Senator Lugar who worked with Senator Byrd and others, Senator Biden, who agreed to let this come up in an expedited fashion, and over on the House side Representatives Eliot Engel and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen helped us quite a bit in moving this bill. So it is, in fact, a day that is important. What we are basically saying in our bill is that if Syria does not shape up they are going to face sanctions from this Government. If Syria does not stop supporting terrorism, if Syria does not stop the development of weapons of mass destruction, if Syria does not end its occupation of Lebanon and cease support for the terrorists operating in Iraq, they are going to face a series of escalating sanctions. The fact is that we have 81 cosponsors--and I see Senator Santorum on the floor now. He worked his side of the aisle, I have worked mine, and we were able to really get these cosponsorships up. On October 15, the House passed its version of the bill 398 to 4. So I have to say we are on to something. Let me say from the bottom of my heart what I think we are on to. We are on to the premise that the truth shall set you free. We cannot have relationships with Syria and close our eyes to the truth, and the truth is that Syria is, in fact, supporting terrorism in ways that are very clear. They are a major supporter of Hezbollah, an international terrorist organization that has carried out numerous attacks against Americans and Israeli civilian targets. They have operated freely in the Syrian-controlled Beqaa Valley in Lebanon over the past 20 years. Other terrorist groups such as Hamas, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command all maintain offices, training camps, and other facilities inside Syria or in areas of Lebanon under Syrian control. Anyone who has traveled to the region knows that one of the saddest stories in the world is the story of Lebanon and how its people have lost any control over their own destiny. As we fight for democracy in the world, we have to remember that. This was a country at one point that was absolutely considered the Paris in the Middle East, and it has really been lost because it has been taken over in a hostile takeover, I might say, by the power of Syria. So all of these issues, getting Syria to turn its back on terrorism and not allow these organizations to operate within their borders, Syria allowing the Lebanese people to have a life of freedom and democracy or at least self-determination, however they determine it, these are issues that are crucial. As long as they keep up the status quo, the goal of Middle East peace is quite elusive. Twenty thousand Syrian troops and security personnel continue to occupy Lebanon and again, as I said, undermine its political independence. It is a direct violation of U.N. Security Council Resolution 520. What does that say? That resolution calls for strict respect of the sovereignty, territorial integrity, unity, and political independence of Lebanon. We also know that Syria is developing weapons that are very dangerous, and that they are not doing enough to prevent terrorists from entering into Iraq. In fact, the terrorist who was attempting to blow up an Iraqi police station was found to be carrying a Syrian passport. This has to stop. Nations must be held accountable for the proliferation of terrorism and they must be held accountable if they are not doing all they can to pursue Middle East peace or at least allow that peace to take place. So this legislation has taken a bumpy road. When Senator Santorum and I got together to work on it, people said that is quite a combination. They said if those two can get together on anything, eventually we know we are going to win. It has taken us almost 2 years but we could not be happier. We want to thank the 80 other Senators who are cosponsors of this bill. We, again, thank Senators Lugar and Biden for allowing this bill to come directly to the floor today. We think it is a historic day. Our goal is to prevent war and to lay out markers for Syria. We do not want to go to war with Syria. We just want to say, in a truthful way, these are the things that you have been doing wrong. Please meet these markers. Help us. Help us in the world. If you don't, we are going to have some sanctions and they are spelled out. I think others have spelled them out. The idea behind this bill is to avoid a confrontation and instead have a relationship that is respectful between our two nations. I think today we will go a long way to that end. I believe all my time is used up at this point so I will yield the floor and I hope we will be voting shortly on this.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, under the order, I have how much time remaining on my side?

Mrs. BOXER. Does the Senator from Illinois wish to make a few comments? How much time does he need? I yield 5 minutes to my friend from Illinois, and then I will use the remainder of my time.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Feinstein be added as a cosponsor.

Mrs. BOXER. Very briefly, this amendment closes what I consider to be a little bit of a loophole in the marketing opt-out provision of the bill. We do two things. The underlying bill says the marketing opt-out expires after 5 years, unless a consumer opts out again. We make the first opt-out permanent as long as the consumer wants it. Secondly, the definition of a preexisting relationship with a company, with an affiliate, is drawn in such a way, it is very broad. So what we say is, a person will be deemed to have this preexisting relationship with the affiliate if they have purchased, rented, or leased a service or good from the affiliate during the 18-month period before the information sharing takes place or they have inquired about an affiliate's product in the 3 months before the sharing takes place. By adopting this simple amendment, we keep financial institutions from violating consumer rights. I am very pleased that both sides of the committee have signed off on this, and I would be happy to take a voice vote on this at this time.

Mrs. BOXER. I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration. I am very pleased to say both Senator Sarbanes and Senator Shelby have signed off on this amendment.

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

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise in favor of the Feinstein-Boxer amendment, and I note that there are a number of others on that amendment as well. I hope colleagues will realize this amendment will make this bill better, will make this bill stronger, and I am going to take a few minutes to explain why in as simple a way as I can. I stand here very proud that my State treasures privacy and they acted on that value. After years of struggle, California put into law the most tough financial privacy standard in the Nation. Others can say oh, that is not true, and they can quibble, but the facts are the facts. Every consumer group that you ask, any group that is objective on the subject, will tell you that our law is the best and is far better--certainly than the House bill, and better than the bill that is before us today. I do want to compliment my friend. You have made some good advances here. I will talk about that in my statement. But we can do better, and I offer this amendment with Senator Feinstein in a very friendly way, in the hopes that maybe we can make this better. The struggle to pass SB-1, California's financial privacy law, was very long and very transparent. I want to say that State Senator Jackie Speier did an unbelievable job. For 4 years, she worked with banks on behalf of the consumers. The industry invested more than $20 million in lobbying expenses and campaign contributions during those 4 years but eventually a wonderful thing happened. The banks came to the table and they negotiated with Senator Speier. The fact is, there was a reason. They saw the handwriting on the wall. They saw that there was going to be a State initiative. They had already gathered 550,000 signatures quickly and Senator Speier's provision for more strict privacy was supported in the polls. How about this? California Democrats in the polls supported this initiative by 96 percent; and California Republicans, 88 percent; Independents, 90 percent. So Senator Speier had touched on a very important value of Californians. I really do believe if you took a poll today, just a really carefully worded one which went into every State in the Union, there would be support for this Feinstein-Boxer amendment to make this bill stronger. I will explain it. The committee went ahead and did some good things. It includes fraud alerts for consumers and protection for credit card numbers on receipts and free credit reports. It is very important they say that you can't go outside and share the information with outside companies. That is great. I salute Senators Shelby and Sarbanes for that progress. However, there is one major problem Senator Feinstein and I are addressing in this amendment. We are saying, first of all, if a State wants to go further than you have, we ought to have that chance. Your bill ought to be a ceiling. All good wisdom doesn't reside here. We always like to think it does, but it doesn't. A lot of our States are ahead of us, and they want to do more. Yet California finds itself left out because there is no preemption for our State. We know we are not going to get that. We have 35 million people in our State. We can't get an exemption. We understand that. We are simply asking you follow the lead of our State on this one because I think it is the fair thing to do. Some people listening today might say, Well, the committee bill says you can't go outside and share information. But you can share it with your own affiliates that are in your little corporate family. What is wrong with that? That is a logical question until you look at the banking industry and look at how big these families can get. Let us take a look at some of these families for which this bill would allow affiliate sharing. Let us take a look at Citigroup. They are small? They have 1,630 affiliates. Bank of America. How well I remember the proud history of that bank in my State. They have 1,323 affiliates. JP Morgan, 967 affiliates; Wachovia Corporation, 886 affiliates; Wells Fargo, 671; Bank One, 253. When you say to all of these people you cannot share information outside your family, you are in essence saying you can share it within your families. We are talking about thousands of affiliates that will get every bit of information about you and your financial transactions. My colleagues can stand up here from night until morning and argue with me on the point that we are wrong on this. I know we are right. This is the right thing to do to protect our constituents. Let me show you Bank of America affiliates. I want to show it in a way that is pretty graphic. I will not read every one of their affiliates. I am going to truncate and do this quickly. We have nine charts listing all of these. These are Bank of America banks: Commonwealth National Bank, First National Bank, National Bank of Howard County, and American State Bank. I can't even pronounce some of these. Bank of America Mexico; Finacero Bank of America. They will know your transactions. That is just the first Bank of America chart. Let us look at one other. We do have nine of these. I will go quickly. Here is another one. Let us go to Bank of America insurance companies and look at who they own: First National Insurance Services, American Fidelity and Liberty, Bank of America Insurance Services, Inc., and Home Focus Services. I don't know what they do, but they will know what you do. General Fidelity Life. How about Boatman's Insurance Agency? You do business with any one of these and more than a thousand affiliates will know how much you earn, what your Social Security number is, how did you pay, if you missed a payment, what your likes and dislikes are. Let us show a couple of others. Bank of America and other affiliated companies: Oakland Trace Redevelopment, Holly Springs Meadows, LLC, East Nashville Housing. You go into a bank in California and East Nashville will know what you are worth. Dallas-Ft. Worth Affordable Housing, Old Heritage New Homes, Texas Corporate Tax Credit Fund, and it goes on. Michigan, Osbourne Landing Limited, it goes on and on. West Wood Manor Development, Elk Ridge Apartments. The point I am making--and I will show one last chart. We have 9 of these charts listing Bank of America's 1,600 affiliates, for anyone who really cares enough to examine each and every one of these affiliates. Our point is we could go on and on and make our point with each and every chart, but I am going to spare my colleagues. They have worked long and hard already today. Here is the point: Do not share. That is a simple message. This Senate supported ``do not call.'' We said people deserve their privacy. If you don't want to get a call at night, you shouldn't have to get a call at night. We are saying if you decide--and our amendment simply says you have to opt out automatically under this Feinstein-Boxer amendment--your information would be shared, you have to take an affirmative step and opt out. If you are a person who believes in your right to privacy, and you don't want some company over in The Netherlands to know what you are about, because there is one here--Bank of America Netherlands. How about Odessa Park? These are worldwide affiliates. We are very proud of Bank of America. Good for them. They have all of these affiliates. But not good for them if they start to share information. Under the underlying bill, they can share all sorts of information with every one of these affiliates. Guess what. You get turned down for a loan, let us say, because of information that was shared among the affiliates. You have absolutely no right to know who told who what, where, and when. What if it was wrong? There is no redress. There is no way to correct the record. All I can say is I have heard the debate, and I have heard our amendment taken out of context: Oh, gee, that amendment will make it worse for people. Wrong. I will tell you who is supporting our amendment--people who have fought their whole lives for consumers and for the rights of people to have privacy. That is who is supporting us. The AARP, which represents many seniors, supports our amendment; the ACLU fights for civil liberties and privacy; Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union, the National Association of Consumer Advocates, National Community Reinvestment Coalition, Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, Privacy Times, U.S. PIRG. These are people who absolutely know our amendment is a step in the right direction. I have a couple of other points to make. I will make them as quickly as I can. I want to share with you some of the quotes that were made by the big banks when California passed its law. Did they complain about it? Not at all. This is what they said. This is Diane Colborn who lobbies for Personal Insurance Federation. She called this workable, reasonable compromise a ``balanced measure that will provide meaningful protections to consumers while also addressing the workability concerns that our members and customers had.'' Jim Bruner, who lobbies for the Securities Industry Association, appeared before our committees in California. He said the measure is a ``good, workable, reasonable bill.'' The ink didn't dry on that bill before they came up here and started wining and dining and talking to people--I guess you can't wine and dine anymore, and that is a good thing--about why this bill couldn't go too far. Don't go too far; it is a burden. I am so sorry about that. I was so excited when California passed the privacy protections. In closing my remarks, I will read some newspaper editorials. From the New York Times: ``Buyer Beware,'' just written a few days ago. This (affiliate sharing) is a dark and unmapped universe in which banks, credit card companies and insurers have free rein to share detailed records among thousands of affiliates, with customers largely powerless and unknowing. Bank balances, buying habits, investment profiles and more can be tapped into in ways that invite fraud, marketing assaults, identity theft and unfair credit decisions. The Senate measure contains no real solution for indiscriminate data sharing. Far preferable is an amendment to be offered by Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer of California that would require advance notice from businesses so consumers would have a chance to block planned sharings that reached beyond relevant credit issues. Rejection of this amendment would only compound businesses' temptation to be marketers rather than the protectors of the privacy of the American consumer. We know in the underlying bill you cannot share for marketing purposes, but there is a giant loophole dealing with preexisting relationships, making it confusing and complicated. That is why I believe the Feinstein-Boxer amendment will cure these problems. From the San Jose Mercury News: The financial services industry is guilty of a nasty bait- and-switch on the people of California. Its lobbyists worked with privacy advocates to help shape the law into what the industry called a reasonable and workable compromise. All the industry said it hoped for was a uniform privacy standard across the nation. Yet immediately after the California law was approved, industry lobbyists went to Washington to try to erase it from the boxes. The only national standard they are interested in is one that gives them the unfettered right to sell their customers' personal financial details to the highest bidder. That was the San Jose Mercury News, in the heart of Silicon Valley. This is a newspaper that very often is on the cutting edge of the way we ought to be thinking about financial issues. I close with an editorial from The Los Angeles Times, October 29, entitled ``Put Privacy on the List.'' Congress promised voters that it would improve consumer rights with regular reviews of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, initially passed 33 years ago to balance the competing interests of business and consumers. Bills in the House and Senate would make it easier for consumers to see credit reports and report identity theft. But the legislation wouldn't help consumers keep private their bank balances, spending patterns and other sensitive data. Congress could cover this gaping problem by adopting the amendment crafted by Feinstein and Boxer, which keeps alive the protections at the heart of SB 1. Colleagues, I know sometimes we get bills where deals have been cut, deals have been made, and everyone has put their hand out like after a sports game, saying: OK, on blood oath, we will not take amendments. I have been here long enough to know that. I hope some colleagues will be open to this. We have done the right thing. Strong percentages of the American people--if it mirrors California, it would be 80 percent and above--support making sure that your personal-private financial data cannot be shared within a family of a company which could include thousands--1,600, 2,000, who knows--as more and more mergers go on. We do not want that information to be shared. That is exactly the right course to take. I am hopeful we will get a strong vote on the Feinstein-Boxer amendment. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I have been yielded 10 minutes by the minority leader, which I would like to use at this time. I start off by first saying this is a very hard time for our country. Clearly, for my State, the kind of horror we have seen from these uncontrollable fires has been just unspeakable. Finally, we are getting them contained. At this point, we have lost 3,400 homes. Some 750,000 acres have burned. We have had 20 deaths, one of them a fireman from my home county. For me, the bill that is before us is a mixed bag in many ways. It does have funding for these disasters. It does have money for our brave, courageous, and extraordinary heroes and, of course, I support all of that. What I do not support is the fact that many of the provisions have been dropped that would have made a difference in our policy there. We are going down a path that is bringing the American people pain deep within their hearts that one just cannot even measure. I have long talked about shoulder-fired missiles and what they can do to aircraft. We have seen that in the starkest possible way. I feel so much sadness given what is happening in my State. I am glad the President is coming there tomorrow. I am writing a letter to FEMA. I have been calling Director Michael Brown, who has been very compassionate, to set up disaster centers. I have been calling on him to work with me in encouraging the mortgage companies to be as good to their mortgage holders as Fannie Mae has been, giving them a chance to recoup and getting those individual and business loans to start rebuilding, which we will. We will rebuild. I went back to look at my own record on fire issues since maybe 5, 6, 7 years ago. We have been urging for so many years that communities close to national forests be paid special attention. So there will be more time to talk about all of that. Today, I wish to eulogize our young men and women who have died during the war in Iraq, as well as those who have been killed during this postwar period. I simply want to call attention to the Californians who have died in this conflict. We have lost 73 young people in this war from California. My colleagues will note that there are 72 on this list behind me. We just learned of the first woman from California today. That puts us up to 73. I want to read their names. I am not going to tell my colleague about each and every one of them. I am going to put that in the Record: Michael Bitz, Jose Garibay, Jorge Gonzalez, Thomas Mullen Adams, Jose Gutierrez, Randal Kent Rosacker, Michael Vann Johnson, Jr., Ryan Beaupre, Therrel Shane Childers, Brian Matthew Kennedy, Kendall Damon Watersbey, Kevin Nave, William White, Joseph Menusa, Jesus Suarez Del Solar, Patrick T. O'Day, Francisco Flores, Aaron Contreras, Donald May, Robert Rodriguez, Michael Lalush, Brian McGinnis, Christian Gurtner, Erik Silva, Benjamin Sammis, Chad Bales, Mark Evnin, Eric Smith, Travis Ford, Devon Jones, Duane Rios, Edward Smith, Jesus Medellin, Juan Garza, Jr., Jeffrey Bohr, Jr., Jesus Gonzalez, Riayan A. Tejeda, David Owens, Jr., Jason Mileo, Troy Jenkins, Osbaldo Orozco, Jose Rodriguez, Jakub Kowalik, Douglas Marencoreyes, Andrew Lamont, William Moore, Timothy Ryan, Aaron White, Kirk Straseskie, Jonathan Lambert, Atanacio Marin, Ryan Cox, Andrew Chris, Travis Bradachnall, Paul Nakamura, David Moreno, Andrew Tetrault, Cory Geurin, Evan Ashcraft, David Perry, Daniel Parker, Kylan Jones-Huffman, Pablo Manzano, Joseph Robsky, Jr., Joshua McIntosh, Sean Silva, Jose Casanova, Sean Grilley, Michael Hancock, Jose Mora, Steven Acosta, Paul Velazquez, and this is the first woman to die in this war from California, Karina Lau, age 20, of Livingston, killed on November 2 in Iraq. Karina was onboard a Chinook helicopter when it was attacked. She was assigned to B Company, 16th Signal Battalion, 3rd Signal Brigade, in Fort Hood, TX. We send our deepest love and sympathy to all of these families. This is what is happening in Iraq. Maybe we do not see the bodies coming home but this is what is happening in Iraq. It was not supposed to be thus. I sit on the Foreign Relations Committee and they told us we would be welcomed as liberators. They said the purpose was to get the weapons of mass destruction, and the purpose was to get rid of Saddam Hussein. If those were the purposes, it is time now to rethink what we are doing there. That means, it seems to me, to admit that it is not going the way the American people were promised. We are told 80 percent of Iraq is safe. We have been told that by many people. We have been told that by Paul Wolfowitz. We have been told that by Ambassador Bremer. I am going to take them at their word-- 80 percent of Iraq is safe. Then why do we have to have only our young people, with a few others sprinkled in, in those areas? What we need to do is bring in the peacekeepers, if things are safe in those areas, 80 percent of the country. We should concentrate our force in the area of the country that is so very dangerous. We should get help from the entire world to do that. This burden cannot keep on falling on America's families. Many reporting requirements were dropped from this bill. I asked for a specific report detailing the extent to which U.S. military personnel have been replaced by international troops or Iraqi forces in secure areas of Iraq--the 80 percent solution I talked about. The conference report requires a report on U.S. efforts to increase the number of international troops, but basically it has dropped the portion where we talk about that 80 percent of the country.