Floor Statements

Mr. President, I thank Senator Clinton. I am also very proud to be on the floor of this great body with my Democratic women Senate colleagues.

We held a press conference in which we challenged the Republican leadership to bring up issues on this floor that are meaningful to our families. Here is our checklist for change. Each of us has taken one of these issues. Mine happens to be protecting our air, land, and water.

The message we are here today to convey is that the Republicans run the Senate, the White House, and the House of Representatives. They control what issues come to the floor of the Congress for debate. We spent yesterday debating an amendment to the Constitution to ban flag burning. We also debated a bipartisan proposal by Senators Bennett and Clinton to ban flag burning via a statute.

Every one of us in this body voted to ban flag burning, be it by a statute or by an amendment. But one has to ask the question: Is that debate, which we have had four times, more important than the issues that are on our checklist for change?

There have been four reports of flag burnings this year. That is four too many, but they were four. Yet there are 44 million Americans whose pensions are at risk while this Congress fails to act to protect those pensions.

Four flags burned versus 7.5 million Americans who have been denied an increase in the minimum wage. And this Congress, under the Republicans, sees nothing wrong with giving themselves a pay raise, but they can't raise the minimum wage, and it has been flat for 9 years, which means it has gone down in value and people cannot make it on $5.15 an hour.

Four flags have been burned--four too many--versus 170,000 talented college-ready students each year who stay home because they can't afford tuition.

Four flags burned--four too many--yet 30,000-plus veterans have waited in 2006 for their first medical appointment, an issue that will be taken up by Senator Murray.

Four flags burned versus 200,000 people in New Orleans living in trailers, unfinished houses, or tents in the front yards of their Katrina-ravaged homes.

Four flags burned this year--four too many--versus $2.89 a gallon for regular gas. By the way, that is the national price. In California, we are looking at well over $3 a gallon.

Four flags burned--four too many--versus 46 million Americans with no health insurance, and Senator Lincoln will talk about that.

Four flags burned--four too many--versus over 500,000 Americans who have lost their lives while we wait for this Republican Congress to take action on stem cell legislation, an issue that has been championed by many of us in this Senate and on this checklist carried by Senator Feinstein.

And, finally, four flags burned--four too many--versus 75 million Americans living near our most polluted toxic waste Superfund sites.

In conclusion, because my checkpoint is protect our air, land, and water, I call on this Republican Congress to address two pressing environmental crises: global warming and Superfund cleanup.

It is easy to put global warming on the back burner as long as our everyday lives are not affected, but some people think their everyday lives are beginning to be affected. The best scientists in the world warn us that we are near the tipping point on global warming.

Just the other day, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, along with the national academy of science for 10 other nations, agreed that climate change is real and it has to be addressed. So we call on this Republican Congress to do something about it. Don't sit back and say this doesn't exist because you are ignoring science.

I am proud to say that in the State of California, they are listening. This week a historic global warming bill cleared the first hurdle and passed the California Senate Environmental Quality Committee. California has been a leader in the environment, and Senator Feinstein and I want to make sure that we can bring some of that action right here to the Senate.

Last point: We need to clean up these Superfund sites that are hurting our families and hurting our communities. Under the Clinton administration, we cleaned up 80 of these sites a year. Now it is down to 40 sites a year. We owe our children a clean and healthy environment.

Mr. President, it is time for you and the Members of the Republican Congress to call on the Republican leadership to take up our checklist for change. We are very proud to be talking about this all together this morning on the Senate floor.

I am proud to yield now for Senator Patty Murray of Washington.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Secure Nuclear Facilities Act of 2006, which addresses an unacceptable gap in our Nation's homeland security. My bill would hold commercial nuclear powerplants to the same high security standards to which government nuclear facilities are subject.

There are currently 104 nuclear powerplants licensed to operate in the United States, including two plants, with two reactors each, in my home state of California.

These plants are potential targets for terrorists, and we are not doing enough to ensure they are protected. The 9/11 Commission report, issued on July 22, 2004, stated that nuclear powerplants were among the targets considered in the original plan for the September 11, 2001, attacks.

An attack on a nuclear plant would be disastrous. The meltdown of a nuclear powerplant's nuclear reactor core, release of the spent nuclear fuel located at the site, removal from the site of radioactive materials, or other violation of the plant's security would greatly endanger public health and safety. Unfortunately, there are reports of nuclear plant operators' failure to effectively address vital security issues, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's failure to hold them sufficiently accountable.

To make matters worse, commercial nuclear plant operators are not currently required to defend their plants against theft and diversion of nuclear material. Nonweapon nuclear facilities operated by the government, on the other hand, are required to defend against not only direct attacks, but also theft and diversion of nuclear material. This double standard makes no sense.

Commercial nuclear plants contain materials that terrorists might attempt to steal, just like government nuclear facilities. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NRC, concedes that terrorists might use these highly radioactive materials in a radiological bomb or, with the right equipment, reprocess it into weapons-grade material. But according to the NRC, it is not reasonable to expect a private facility to cope with this threat, because private facilities do not have the same resources as government facilities.

The NRC's argument is deeply flawed. If nuclear plant owners and operators cannot address the full spectrum of terrorist threats they face, then they should not be in business. There is too much at stake in terms of the dangers posed by these threats for us to allow continued low security standards for commercial nuclear plants.

My bill would require commercial nuclear plants to defend against the same potential threats as government nuclear facilities, including threat and diversion of nuclear materials. The bill would also strengthen State and local responders' ability to aid nuclear plants in case of an attack by terrorists. It offers grants to State and local responders to facilitate evacuations and medical treatment, as well as interoperable communications among first responders and plant operators.

The Secure Nuclear Facilities Act of 2006 would make our country safer by ensuring better security at commercial nuclear plants. I urge my colleagues to support this important bill.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Secure Nuclear Facilities Act of 2006, which addresses an unacceptable gap in our Nation's homeland security. My bill would hold commercial nuclear powerplants to the same high security standards to which government nuclear facilities are subject.

There are currently 104 nuclear powerplants licensed to operate in the United States, including two plants, with two reactors each, in my home state of California.

These plants are potential targets for terrorists, and we are not doing enough to ensure they are protected. The 9/11 Commission report, issued on July 22, 2004, stated that nuclear powerplants were among the targets considered in the original plan for the September 11, 2001, attacks.

An attack on a nuclear plant would be disastrous. The meltdown of a nuclear powerplant's nuclear reactor core, release of the spent nuclear fuel located at the site, removal from the site of radioactive materials, or other violation of the plant's security would greatly endanger public health and safety. Unfortunately, there are reports of nuclear plant operators' failure to effectively address vital security issues, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's failure to hold them sufficiently accountable.

To make matters worse, commercial nuclear plant operators are not currently required to defend their plants against theft and diversion of nuclear material. Nonweapon nuclear facilities operated by the government, on the other hand, are required to defend against not only direct attacks, but also theft and diversion of nuclear material. This double standard makes no sense.

Commercial nuclear plants contain materials that terrorists might attempt to steal, just like government nuclear facilities. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NRC, concedes that terrorists might use these highly radioactive materials in a radiological bomb or, with the right equipment, reprocess it into weapons-grade material. But according to the NRC, it is not reasonable to expect a private facility to cope with this threat, because private facilities do not have the same resources as government facilities.

The NRC's argument is deeply flawed. If nuclear plant owners and operators cannot address the full spectrum of terrorist threats they face, then they should not be in business. There is too much at stake in terms of the dangers posed by these threats for us to allow continued low security standards for commercial nuclear plants.

My bill would require commercial nuclear plants to defend against the same potential threats as government nuclear facilities, including threat and diversion of nuclear materials. The bill would also strengthen State and local responders' ability to aid nuclear plants in case of an attack by terrorists. It offers grants to State and local responders to facilitate evacuations and medical treatment, as well as interoperable communications among first responders and plant operators.

The Secure Nuclear Facilities Act of 2006 would make our country safer by ensuring better security at commercial nuclear plants. I urge my colleagues to support this important bill.

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

Mr. President, I had tried to get time earlier in the day. Unfortunately, I was tied up in a markup. I want to express myself briefly on the constitutional amendment.

I opposed it, even though clearly it was far more popular in the country to support it. I did so because of my love of our country, our Constitution, and our freedoms. The love of country runs deep in my veins, as I know it does in those of every Senator.

My family came here in the early years of the 20th century to be safe from the Holocaust in Europe, the nightmare that took the lives of our relatives and so many innocent people. To my family and to me, America was not only a land of strength and courage but a land of compassion and acceptance. My father, who was a CPA, always said to me: Kiss the ground when you pay your taxes to America because you are helping to build our military, our schools, our roads, and our infrastructure.

My mother said that being an American meant being free to live your dreams, and only in this country, she would say, in America, where she was brought as a baby by her family, would that be possible.

I was taught not to be afraid of disagreement, not to fear words and not

to shrink from an argument in this, the greatest country on Earth. In a great country like the United States of America, you don't fear dissent. In a great country you allow dissent, even if it is ugly, even if it makes you sick to your stomach, even if it disgusts you. We are so strong as a Nation that we know if someone takes one of our beautiful symbols and destroys it or burns it or spits on it or steps on it, that person will not win respect but will lose it. That person will not win friends but in fact will turn people away. That person will gain nothing for his cause but, in fact, will be ridiculed and marginalized.

Now if a flag is burned or if a copy of the Bill of Rights or a copy of the Constitution is burned and that act is meant to incite others and it places people in danger, we should have laws to punish those who would endanger other lives. That is why I was proud to support the Bennett-Clinton-Durbin amendment, to do just that. I can certainly understand how seeing our flag burn would inflame passions and incite outrage. It does so in me.

The flag to me is a symbol of something I hold near and dear to my heart--our democracy, our country, our history. And I am outraged when I think about someone treating the flag in a disrespectful manner. But I am also outraged when I see or hear about a group of people protesting at the funeral of a fallen soldier, saying things like ``thank God for dead soldiers'' or ``God is America's terrorist.'' That is what is going on today at soldiers' funerals.

Such despicable speech and disrupting the most sacred funerals of our heroes makes no sense to me, and I can't begin to imagine the emotions of the families of the soldiers who must endure these senseless protests at a time of such loss. My instinct is to haul these protesters away. My colleague, Senator Durbin, proposed an amendment that would prohibit these awful protests at all funerals for our fallen heroes, regardless of where the funerals take place, whether at a national or private cemetery, a funeral home or a house of worship. I was proud to support that amendment, and I was stunned to see how many of my colleagues turned away from it.

I agree with the approach of Senator Durbin to the protests-- proposing a statutory solution to address a problem rather than unnecessarily amending our Constitution. There are many things in life that we find offensive, repugnant to beliefs that we hold dear, but we cannot amend the Constitution every time there is something we consider outrageous, offensive, or repugnant.

We have only amended our Constitution 16 times after the Bill of Rights was passed in 1791--16 times over 214 years. But the Republican leadership has decided the best use of our precious little working time is to amend the Constitution--not amend it to guarantee equal rights for women, which still has not been done, not to amend it to allow limits on wealthy individuals buying Federal office--but for an issue which I believe we can address by statute, as I believe Senators Bennett and Clinton and Durbin did.

Some have suggested that this constitutional amendment is necessary to honor our veterans. I think Senator Specter spoke eloquently on the point. I say, if we want to honor our veterans we should take care of our brave men and women in uniform who serve our Nation.

For example, just last week my good friend from Maine, Senator Snowe, and I were able to get an amendment agreed to by the Senate which would make all prisoners of war who die in captivity eligible for the Purple Heart. Also last week Senator Lieberman and I were able to get an amendment agreed to by the Senate improving the mental health screening and monitoring for members of our Armed Forces.

I think we honor our veterans and Armed Forces when we make sure that we are looking out for them, keeping our promises to them. Right now we are not.

We should provide them with all the equipment they need while they are deployed and all the health care they need when they come home.

Let's make sure our men and women have adequate body armor. Let's find ways to expand health care coverage for the members of the Guard and Reserves. Let's make sure the Veterans Administration is adequately funded to meet the needs of our veterans at a time when we are seeing horrific post-traumatic stress: suicides are up, divorces are up. These are the ways we honor our veterans.

We love the flag--yes. We love our veterans--yes. But I think we can do both without having to amend the Constitution.

I believe the flag is a beautiful symbol of the freedom and liberty on which this proud Nation has been built. The flag is a reminder of the democracy we all hold so dear in our hearts. When I see the flag displayed in an inappropriate way--I think Senator Lautenberg showed it--on underwear or on pajamas, I don't think that is respectful. But that is what we see every day. I don't like it, but, you know what, this Constitution is more than an outlet for our justifiable frustrations. This Constitution is more than just an outlet for our justifiable frustrations.

It is concise. It has worked. It is the enduring ideal of our Nation, and we should not unnecessarily amend it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to take a few minutes to discuss an amendment that I understand Mr. Warner and Mr. Levin have included in the managers' package.

I would like to begin by thanking Senators Warner and Levin and their staffs for working so hard with us to get this done. I would also like to thank my colleague Senator Lieberman for working diligently with me to draft this legislation.

He really is a true champion for our men and women in uniform.

This amendment addresses an issue that is vitally important to many of my colleagues here in the Senate--improving mental health screening and services for our brave men and women serving in our armed services.

As we all know, our soldiers, marines, airmen, and sailors have been bogged down in an extremely dangerous and increasingly destructive war in Iraq for more than 3 years, and the pressure is taking its toll.

Multiple deployments, the insurgency, and the unprecedented urban combat that many of our service members face is resulting in high levels of mental illness, including PTSD--a disorder that, if left untreated, can cripple a person for life.

Tragically, many of our service members are not being adequately screened and treated for these conditions.

Let me give you an example from last month's Hartford Courant, which ran an extended series of articles detailing the failures of our military health care system.

Nine months ago, 27-year-old SSG Bryce Syverson was on suicide watch and taking antidepressants in the psychiatric unit at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. Doctors had diagnosed him with PTSD and depression, which they attributed to his 15-month tour in Iraq as a gunner on a Bradley tank.

Today, Staff Sergeant Syverson is back in the combat zone as part of a quick reaction force in Kuwait that could be summoned to Iraq at any time.

He got his deployment orders after being told he wasn't fit for duty.

He got his gun back after being told he was too unstable to carry a weapon.

In a recent e-mai1 to his parents and brothers, Sergeant Syverson wrote: ``Nearly died on a PT test out here on a nice and really mild night because of the medication that I am taking. Head about to explode from the blood swelling inside, the [lightening] storm that happened in my head, the blurred vision, confusion, dizziness and a whole lot more. Not the best feeling in the entire world to have after being here for two days. . . . And I ask myself what . . . am I doing here?''

I ask my colleagues, do this make any sense?

In the Hartford Courant's May 17 piece entitled ``Still Suffering, But Redeployed,'' COL Elspeth Ritchie, a psychiatry consultant to the Army surgeon general, acknowledged that the decision to deploy soldiers with PTSD is a matter that the Army is currently wresting with.

I would like to quote Colonel Ritchie, because I think that something she said is particularly telling: ``historically, we have not wanted to send soldiers or anybody with post-traumatic stress disorder back into what traumatized them. . . . The challenge for us . . . is that the Army has a mission to fight.''

I appreciate that the military--particularly the Army--is facing severe manpower needs, but the fact that we are knowingly sending U.S. service members back into the very situation that caused their trauma is utterly tragic.

Tragic and unacceptable.

The Boxer-Lieberman amendment would do some very important things to address this situation.

First, it would improve mental health screening procedures for those about to be deployed. Currently, the military's pre-deployment mental health assessment is a single question on a form.

The Boxer-Lieberman amendment requires an enhanced mental health screening process prior to deployment that would include: a mental health history of the servicemember; current mental health treatment or use of medications for a mental health disorder; an assessment of any behavior identified by the unit commander that might provided by the member, (through a checklist or other means,) of symptoms that might indicate a mental health condition.

Second, the amendment mandates that soldiers determined to have symptoms of a mental health condition--either before deployment or after deployment--will be referred to a qualified health care professional with experience in the evaluation and diagnosis of mental health conditions.

This is an area where we are really falling short-the Hartford Courant reports that military screeners have arranged mental health evaluations for fewer than one in 300 deploying troops.

Third, the Boxer-Lieberman amendment mandates that any member of the Armed Forces who requests access to mental health care services, before, during, or after deployment to a combat zone, will be given access within 72 hours after making the request or as soon as possible.

Fourth, the amendment directs the Department of Defense to develop clear and consistent guidelines and regulations on what mental health conditions and psychotropic drugs ought to prevent a servicemember from being deployed to a combat zone.

It also requires the Department to develop guidelines for the deployability and treatment of service members diagnosed with severe mental illness or PTSD.

And lastly, it will require the Department to develop a plan to monitor individuals deployed to a combat zone who are known to have a mental health condition or disorder or are known to be taking psychotropic medications.

I think that these are small steps that we can take to ensure that our service members receive a higher standard of mental health services and care.

I hope it will also prevent stories like the one I am about to tell you, again in the Hartford Courant, from happening again.

Patricia Powers of Skiatook, OK wonders why her 20-year-old son Joshua was sent to Iraq barely six months after he enlisted in the Army.

According to Ms. Powers, she ''just couldn't believe'' that the Army took her son in, as her son had Asperger's syndrome--a form of autism.

People with Asperger syndrome tend to be highly intelligent, but they have trouble in social settings and are quite often loners who have difficulty building relationships.

However, Asperger's was not the only neurological issue facing Joshua.

In reading through the medical records of her son's frequent visits to the base doctor, Ms. Powers found that in every instance, the doctor had taken note of Joshua's severe depression.

Three weeks after arriving in Iraq, Pvt. Powers left his barracks around midnight and walked to the latrine, where he ended his life with a gunshot to the head.

In a recent GAG report, the GAG noted that the military has been reluctantto create uniform guidelines for deployment.

In its recommendation, the GAG argued that guidelines are necessary ``so that in future deployments [the Defense Department] would not experience situations such as those that occurred with members being deployed into Iraq who clearly had pre-existing conditions that should have prevented their deployment.''

Situations like Joshua Power's Situations like Bryce Syverson's, where he was forced to ask his family: ``What am I doing here?''

Mr. President, the heroic men and women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan are doing a fantastic job.

In Iraq, they have succeeded in every mission that has been asked of them, even the ones that have changed over time. In Afghanistan, they are relentlessly hunting for the man responsible for the deaths of over 3,000 Americans. But as the death toll continues to rise, so does strain.

Ided today just two examples of soldiers who clearly indicated that deploying them to a combat zone would be a mistake. But we know that there are many more.

What we are asking for in this amendment is simple: that the Pentagon does a better job of dealing with mental health matters for the men and women that it sends into harm's way. I don't think this is too much to ask.

Again, I like to thank Senator Warner, Senator Levin, and Senator Lieberman for their support.

Mr. President, I would like to take a few minutes of the Senate's time to discuss an amendment that I understand Senator Warner and Senator Levin have included in the managers' package.

This amendment--that I worked on with my colleague Senator Snowe-- would move toward expanding eligibility for the Purple Heart to all prisoners of war who die in captivity regardless of the cause of death.

The need for this important amendment was brought to my attention by a group of Korean War veterans--the Tiger Survivors--who identified what many of my colleagues agree is a glaring loophole in current law.

You may be surprised to learn that currently, only prisoners of war who die during their imprisonment of wounds inflicted by the enemy-- such as a gunshot wound or intentional poisoning--clearly meet the criteria for posthumous Purple Heart recognition.

Those who die of starvation, disease, or other causes during captivity do not. I would like to give you an example of what I mean by recounting the story of the crew members who survived the sinking of the USS Houston, a Navy cruiser that was sunk by the Japanese off the coast of Java in February 1942.

After swimming to shore, the Japanese transported American POWs to Burma to work as slave labor building the Burma-Thai Railway, which would stretch 250 miles between mountains, across rivers, and through jungles.

These American POWs cut down trees, built road beds and bridges, and laid ties and rails for what is known as the Death Railway.

Conditions for these Americans were appalling. Each man received half a cup of bug-infested rice a day, and some POWs dropped below 80 pounds. Malnutrition brought on diseases like beri beri, pellagra, and scurvy--severe vitamin deficiencies that result in horrible suffering and even death.

The tropical environment also bred cases of dysentery, malaria, cholera, and tropical ulcers that ate through flesh to expose bone.

Although Japanese doctors were present in the camps, they were not allowed any drugs or tools for practicing medicine. Those workers who were too slow were beaten; those who were too sick to work received no food, and were eventually sent off to die.

Under current law, many of these individuals would not be eligible for the Purple Heart.

Doesn't it make sense that our young service members who died in this manner would be recognized as having died at the hands of the enemy?

Doesn't it make sense that the Houston crew members who were denied treatment and died of starvation and disease in captivity would be eligible for the Purple Heart?

Language that would correct this injustice was accepted as part of the House version of the Defense authorization bill, where it had the overwhelming bipartisan support of 216 cosponsors.

Equally important, correcting this important loophole in the law has been endorsed by the American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Military Order of the Purple Heart, the National Association for Uniformed Services, the Military Officers of America Association, the Korean War Veterans Association, National League of POW-MIA Families, Tiger Survivors, and a number of other prominent veterans organizations.

I can think of no stronger endorsement than from these fine groups who know first-hand the suffering of war.

I would like to tell you one more story by a World War II soldier by the name of John Coleman. This is his story as recounted in his book, Bataan and Beyond:

The treatment of the death march and imprisonment . . . is

beyond the imagination's ability to comprehend. If there ever

was a hell on earth, this was administered to the 7,000 souls

of some of the bravest and most devoted of our military

personnel. Day after day they were in agony, seemingly

blotted out in memory by their nation. They suffered under

the burning tropical sun, on starvation rations, with little

water to drink. They could not even wash the filth from their

bodies or clothes, matted hair, and beards. They were

mentally depressed, had swollen limbs from beri beri,

unhealed festered wounds that were never treated. They also

had distended stomachs, bloody dysentery, and raw, sore

mouths from pellagra. Even a drink of water would cause their

mouths to burn. Everyone had stomach worms that would

sometimes find their way out of the body through the nose. No

attempt was made by the Imperial Japanese Army to furnish any

kind of medication to alleviate the suffering.

Unimaginable. Simply unimaginable.

Mr. President, these brave members of the Armed Forces suffered these cruelties so that we might enjoy the freedoms we have today. I can think of no more fitting tribute for their sacrifice than to posthumously make them eligible for the Purple Heart.

While the amendment that I originally offered would have provided congressional authorization expanding eligibility for the Purple Heart, I worked with Senators Warner and Levin on compromise language that would require the President to determine whether eligibility for the Purple Heart should be expanded to all POW's who died in captivity.

I sincerely hope the President will take a serious look at this proposal, and ensure that our POWs are afforded the recognition they deserve.

Amendment No. 4371

This week, the military informed two California families that their sons were shot and killed by the very same Iraqi troops they were training.

SGT Patrick McCaffrey and 1LT Andre Tyson were killed near Balad in 2004. At first, the Army told the families that these two National Guardsmen were killed by Iraqi insurgents.

An investigation by the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command determined in September 2005 that both soldiers were shot and killed by members of the Iraqi security forces.

In addition to the fact that Iraqi security forces are killing U.S. soldiers, this situation raises several troubling questions.

First, according to his parents, there were two prior incidents in which Sergeant McCaffrey was fired upon by Iraqi security forces and the chain of command took no action. Why was nothing done? Are there other incidents where American troops are being shot at by the Iraqi forces they are training?

Second, why did the Army close its investigation in September 2005 but fail to inform the family until June 2006? Was there a coverup of this incident? What other explanation could there be?

Third, why were the families denied official government reports on the events that led to the deaths of these two soldiers? One of the families needed the help of my office to make any progress in learning the truth. How could the Army treat the families of dead soldiers in such a callous and dismissive way? Where are the military case officers who are supposed to help the families of slain U.S. soldiers?

And, fourth, a Defense Department spokesmen has called this incident ``extremely rare.'' How can the Department of Defense conclude that the incident is rare when such incidents are evidently not being reported up the chain of command? Members of Sergeant McCaffrey's unit told his father that insurgents were offering Iraqi soldiers about $100 apiece for each American they could kill.

I ask the Senator from Michigan, is he willing to work with me to get answers to these troubling questions?

Mr. President, Senator Enzi says this debate is grating on the Republican side of the aisle. Sorry, that is how it is when you are on the wrong side of the truth. It is grating to have to hear the truth as Senator Kennedy and others have spoken of.

It has been 9 long years since there has been an increase in the minimum wage. It is a disgrace. While we see our friends on the other side fight for the CEOs of oil companies, in the Committee on Commerce, they would not even swear them in. They are all on that side. When it comes to working families, forget about it.

Then Senator Enzi implies this does not have anything to do with women. Women make up 59 percent of the workers who would be affected as a result of raising the minimum wage; 1.4 million working mothers would benefit directly, 760,000 single moms would get an immediate raise, and over 3 million kids have parents who would get an immediate raise.

What has happened to family values on the other side of the aisle? It seems to me it is just so many empty words.

Then they scare you and say the economy will suffer. All you have to do, again, is look at the facts and look at the truth. In the 4 years after the last minimum wage increase passed, the economy experienced its strongest growth in over three decades. All the talk about how bad a minimum wage increase is for the economy is not true.

I say to my Republican friends, support the Kennedy increase in the minimum wage. The truth shall set you free.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Virginia.

I come to the Senate tonight with a tremendous sense of loss for the victims of the tragic war in Iraq. Yesterday, the military informed two California families that their sons were murdered in cold blood by the very same Iraqi troops they had been training.

Let me repeat that: The military informed two California families whose sons were in the National Guard that their sons were murdered in cold blood by the very same Iraqi troops they were training.

Sgt. Patrick McCaffrey and 1LT Andre Tyson were killed near Balad 2 years ago. After 2 long years, the Army is now telling the families that Iraqi troops who their sons had been training turned on them and intentionally killed them.

This morning, the mother of Sergeant McCaffrey appeared on CNN and said:

Patrick was never at ease and he constantly said, ``Mom,

we're risking our life every day, all the time,

permanently.''

She told the press that Patrick told his commanding officer twice that he was fired upon by Iraqi troops. He told his dad the same thing and his dad told the press that his commanding officer said, and I quote his dad: ``That he should keep his mouth shut.''

Mrs. McCaffrey said she wants the story to come out because she believes there are other instances of Iraqi troops turning on our soldiers. This is a story that is all over the news. It is emblematic of what this war is turning into.

This week, we all were devastated to hear of the cruel and savage killing of two United States soldiers who were reportedly tortured in a barbaric fashion. These soldiers were manning a traffic check point when they were captured by insurgents. A third soldier also died in the attack.

Every day we hear of a new tragedy from Iraq. Why? Because more than 3 years ago, our President launched a war that was based on false premises. The administration told the American people that Saddam posed an imminent threat to the United States because of his close ties to al-Qaida and because he had an active nuclear weapons program. The administration's case has unraveled in light of the facts. We have a chance tomorrow to stand up and say no to the status quo. We can do it with two Democratic amendments. We know there was no working relationship between al-Qaida and Saddam, and Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program was dormant.

Just look at the State Department's own document which Senator Feingold talked about. It says clearly when we were attacked by al- Qaida on that fateful day of September 11, there was not one al-Qaida cell in Iraq. Yet those who asked questions about these false premises were dismissed, ridiculed, called unpatriotic, and, in one case, the case of Ambassador Joe Wilson, he actually faced retaliation. The wife of Ambassador Wilson had her identity as a CIA agent exposed. Why? Because Joe Wilson blew the whistle on President Bush's claim that Iraq had sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

Why do I recount Valerie Plame's story? Because it shows just how far the Bush administration and their Republican friends in Congress will go to tarnish and hurt those who see the war differently from them. That is frightening no matter what side of the fence you are on. Imagine going after someone's family because you felt you did not like what the man said. In fact, he told the truth, that there was no truth to the claim that Saddam was seeking yellow cake uranium.

In this debate right now, those same voices are saying that anyone who disagrees with the status quo in Iraq and speaks about an exit strategy for the war is advocating a policy of cut-and-run. Let me be clear, calling for redeployment of our troops out of Iraq is not cut- and-run. It is smart and strategic.

Why is it smart? Because it will give the signal to the Iraqis that they have to stand up and protect their own country.

Why is it strategic? Because it will allow us to use our resources to go after al-Qaida, Osama bin Laden.

Let's take a look at the status quo. The status quo in Iraq is an endless venture with ever-changing missions that has resulted in more than 2,500 United States deaths and 18,000 wounded. It is a blank check and a blind eye.

I have a chart that shows the costs. This is showing what this President calls ``progress'' and his Republican friends in Congress call progress. Let's look at the facts. The monthly cost of the Iraq war in 2003 was $4.4 billion a month. It is now $8 billion a month. It is causing our debt to soar. It is not being paid for in the usual way: It is put right on Uncle Sam's credit card and our grandchildren will pay the bill, maybe even their children.

The estimated number of insurgents in 2003, 3,000; estimated in 2006, 20,000. Is that progress in Iraq? I don't think so.

Insurgent attacks in 2003, 5 a day; now, 90 a day. Is that progress? I don't think so.

Incidents of sectarian violence, 5 per month; now it is 250 per month.

If that is progress, then we are in serious, serious trouble--more trouble than I think we are in.

How about Iraqis. Are they optimistic about the future? In 2003, 75 percent were optimistic. Do you know what the number is today? Thirty percent. These figures come from the Brookings Institution.

There are claims that the status quo is ``progress,'' when actually the status quo is a disaster. The war is taking a heavy toll on our fighting men and women, many of whom are serving their third tour of duty. Suicides are up.

In 2005, 83 United States Army soldiers committed suicide, an increase of 16 suicides over the 67 reported the year before, and the highest number since 90 were recorded in 1993. Of those 83 soldiers, 25 had been deployed to either Afghanistan or Iraq.

Divorces are up. Where are the family values around this place? Between 2001 and 2004, divorces among Active-Duty Army personnel have doubled. Divorces have doubled. That is the weight of this war. And post-traumatic stress disorder is rampant. A study published in the July 2004 New England Journal of Medicine revealed that 15 percent of marines and 17 percent of soldiers surveyed after deployment in Iraq ``met the screening criteria for major depression, generalized anxiety, or post traumatic stress disorder.''

Our military men and women have done every single thing we have asked of them--even without a plan to anticipate the insurgency. Even without adequate body armor, even without enough up-armored humvees, here is what this administration has asked our fighting men and women to do: find the weapons of mass destruction, find Saddam Hussein and bring him to justice, find Saddam's family and bring them to justice, secure Iraq for elections--there have been three elections, successful, there-- train Iraqi troops--there are now 260,000 of those Iraqi troops trained.

In light of all that our military has done--and they have paid the price in blood, in lost limbs, in pain and suffering and death--what are the Iraqi leaders saying? They have proposed amnesty for those who have killed American soldiers. The amnesty plan would include insurgents who have staged attacks against Americans--even as those attacks continue.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a front-page story from the L.A. Times that ran this past weekend.

It says: The premier is crafting a reconciliation program that ``doesn't rule out participation of `the bloody-handed people in the political process.'''

What happened when we brought up a resolution on this side of the aisle to say, no, no, we will not allow that to happen? What happened? The Republicans stalled us for 2, 3 days, figuring out a way they could get us to back down. But we did not back down.

I cannot believe it. They are still killing our soldiers, and the Republicans in the Senate are saying: Oh, give the Iraqi Government a chance. In their wisdom, they will do the right thing. Well, they are not doing the right thing when they are considering giving amnesty to those who are hurting, killing, brutalizing our troops. I cannot believe it.

And in light of all that I have laid out, what does our President say? He says: I will not allow us to leave until everything is absolutely perfect in Iraq. He does not know when that is. He is not even willing to talk about conditions that would be enough to bring our troops home. It is kind of like: Well, we will know it when we see it. Well, that is not enough for the American people. When the President said, ``mission accomplished,'' it was not true. And when he says now, we can make this work, we can have a country at peace, we can do all this, and we just have to stay there as long as it takes--blank check. Open checkbook, America. Open checkbook for

you. Debts on your children, debts on your grandchildren, and a blind eye to what is happening and what the Iraqi people want.

What kind of leadership is that? You think I like standing up here and getting into this kind of debate? No, I do not. But I have never seen anything like this since the Vietnam war, folks. I lived through those years. That was the reason I got into politics, so we would not make this mistake again.

Senate Democrats are providing real leadership. Do we all agree every inch of the way? No. But I predict to you, at the end of this vote, tomorrow, Republicans will be firm for the status quo, and Democrats will be for changing the mission, changing the dynamic. And that is going to be important for the American people to know.

As I said, redeploying our troops is smart and strategic, and here is why. Again, it is smart and strategic because the Iraqis must stand up to the job of providing security for their own people. My goodness, that is what countries do, folks. That is what countries do. We did it. Yes, we had people help us in the Revolution. By the way, France was one of those countries. But when the fighting was over, we had the boots on the ground. The Iraqi people have to stand up. They have to want democracy as much as we want it for them.

And I will tell you, we should start concentrating on the war against terror. My friends on the other side blend it all together. They blend it all together. But I have already proven to you there was not one al- Qaida cell in Iraq on 9/11. The State Department's own documents show it. There were more al-Qaida cells in America than there were in Iraq. But our presence there is fueling the insurgency completely.

Let me tell you what Peter Bergen has stated. He is an expert. He is an expert on terrorism. He has written books about it. He says this:

What we have done in Iraq is what bin Laden could not have

hoped for in his wildest dreams: We invaded an oil rich

Muslim nation in the heart of the Middle East, the very type

of imperial adventure that bin Laden has long predicted was

the United States' long term goal in the region. We deposed

the secular socialist Saddam, whom bin Laden has long

despised, ignited Sunni and Shia fundamentalist fervor in

Iraq, and have now provoked a defensive jihad that has

galvanized jihad minded Muslims around the world. It's hard to imagine a set of policies better designed to sabotage the war on terrorism.

Now, I have spoken with many generals and military experts who agree that our long-term presence in Iraq is counterproductive. They tell us that our continued presence will continue to breed terrorists not only in Iraq but throughout the world.

Now, I want to show you, as I wind down this speech, how the Iraqi people now feel about our presence. The Brookings Institution revealed this poll. It was just printed in the press a few days ago. If this does not tell the story, nothing does.

Eighty-seven percent of the Iraqis support a timeline for U.S. redeployment. Eighty-seven percent of the Iraqi people want us out of there and want a timeline specifically. By the way, this is one thing that unites all the groups there. Sixty-four percent of the Kurds want a timeline for U.S. redeployment. Ninety percent of the Shias want a timeline for U.S. redeployment. Ninety-four percent of the Sunnis want a timeline for U.S. redeployment.

So you tell me how it makes sense, at a time when we are learning that the Iraqis, whom we are training, have, in at least two cases we know about, turned against our soldiers, who are risking their lives-- shot them in cold blood. For what? They are there to help the Iraqi people, and they are being killed.

I have to say that the status quo is leading us deeper and deeper into a place we don't want to be as a country. The American people want an exit strategy. An exit strategy is not cut-and-run; it is smart and strategic. The status quo is more of the same. How many more times will we come down here and talk about beheadings? How many more times will we come down? How many more deaths will it take until finally we say enough is enough?

That time, I hope, is coming. I think we are going to see votes on these two Democratic amendments that, when taken together, will indicate a real difference here between the parties.

Listen to what the Iraqi people are saying. Listen to what the American people are saying. Listen to what the world is saying. The views of the United States by people all over the world are going down. In the last year alone, favorable views of the United States dropped in Spain, from 41 percent to 23 percent approval; in Indonesia, from 38 percent down to 30 percent; in Turkey, from 23 percent to 12 percent; and in India--India is considered one of our best friends--it has gone from 71 percent down to 56 percent. This does not make us stronger in the world; it makes us weaker. This does not make us safer in the world; it makes us more vulnerable.

I believe in democracy. So let us look at what the Iraqi people are telling us they want. They want a timeline and want us out. Let's listen to the generals who have told us that our long-term presence is fueling the insurgency and we need to get out. Let's listen to the American people who are wise and love our troops and say it is time for an exit strategy.

Folks, we are paralyzed. We are paralyzed here. It is like we are in a hole and we can't get out. Well, I say today is the day to start climbing out of that hole. Senate Democrats have proposed two ways to change the dynamics here in this war.

I plan to vote aye for the Kerry-Feingold-Boxer amendment. It speaks to me as something that will work for us. It is strategic. It is wise. It is smart. I will also vote for the Levin amendment because it moves us in the right direction. It shakes up the mission into something that makes sense. It changes the mission. It starts bringing our troops home and starts to redeploy them.

So my feeling is, the status quo is a disaster. It is a disaster. Let us open our eyes to the truth. Can you imagine how I felt when I got a call in my office by a woman who couldn't find out the truth about who killed her son? And the military had completed its investigation, and they knew her son was killed by the very same Iraqi soldiers whom he was training. And they kept it a secret? They kept it a secret until today from that woman. I have to say, why? Is it because they are fearful that when the American people learn of this, the support for this war will plummet even further? I don't know the answer to that question. But so far, I have no good answers. It worried me with Mr. Tillman, Patrick Tillman, in Afghanistan, when they said he was killed by the enemy, and the parents pressed on and pressed on, and it turned out to be friendly fire.

I am telling you, my colleagues, this is a turning point for us as individual Senators. I hope we have the courage to say no to the status quo, support the Kerry-Feingold-Boxer alternative, and also support the Levin alternative because they both shake it up and say, once and for all, we need to talk about an exit strategy. In the end, that is going to be the road for success.

Thank you very much, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I take this opportunity to honor George Wingate High School in Brooklyn, NY. Wingate High School, my alma mater, will graduate its last class on June 27, 2006.

In 1954, Wingate High School accepted its first class of students and had its first graduating class in 1957. It was the first high school built in New York after the end of World War II, and it embodied many of the ideals of the baby boomer generation. Wingate High School was so different from the standard design plan for schools that it became known as ``The Banjo School'' because of its open design.

Wingate High School was also innovative in its approach to teaching. Instead of focusing strictly on academic classes, Wingate was one of the first high schools in the Nation to offer a comprehensive range of classes in vocational, commercial and academic fields. Wingate High School has been known for its outstanding aviation, culinary arts, nursing and law programs, and many of its students have gone on to become successful pilots, chefs, nurses and attorneys.

Wingate has had a few famous graduates such as former New York State senator and current Brooklyn Borough president, Marty Markowitz, and Roger Brown, a New York City playground legend who went on to greatness in the American Basketball Association. However, thousands of other Wingate graduates have made priceless contributions to their communities, in part because of the valuable lessons they learned there.

I firmly believe that a quality education is the key to our youths' success and our nation's future. I commend Wingate's teachers, faculty, staff, and volunteers for their many years of hard work and dedication to Wingate High School's students. Their work has resulted in thousands of students who are better prepared to face the world and its challenges. I commend them for their commitment to quality education. Their enthusiasm and love of teaching means a brighter future for all of our children.

Wingate High School's motto is: ``Ad Astra per Ardua''--``To the stars through struggle.'' In its 52-year history, George Wingate High School has graduated thousands of students who have gone on to make the world a better place. Though the journey has not always been easy, I know that Wingate's 2006 graduates will go on to do great things.

I give my most sincere congratulations and best wishes for the future to Wingate High School's Class of 2006.

Mr. President, I rise to add my voice to the chorus of praise for an extraordinary member of this institution--my dear friend from West Virginia, Senator Robert Byrd.

What a pleasure it has been to serve with Senator Byrd.

I am constantly inspired by his grace--his brilliance--and his unmatched work ethic.

Today we honor Senator Byrd for reaching the milestone of longest- serving Senator in history--8 terms--48 years--and 17,666 votes.

These are stunning numbers, but this legend is much more than the Cal Ripken, Jr., of the Senate.

Longevity is only part of the story. We know him best for his intellect, his devotion to the people of West Virginia, and his reverence for the institution of the Senate; for keeping a copy of the Constitution in his breast pocket--next to his heart--at all times, not for symbolism but for constant counsel, for having served beside 11 Presidents--both Democrat and Republican; for standing with them when their cause is just--yet never backing down from a fight with any President when he believes important principles are at stake, particularly when our role as a coequal branch of government is threatened.

And that is what I admire most about Senator Byrd: He always stands on principle and fights for what he believes, no matter what the odds.

What an inspiration this has been to me and to so many of us.

What an inspiration--his love of this country, his integrity, his absolute dedication to honest and principled government.

And what an inspiration--his 68-year partnership with his wife Erma-- whom I know he misses dearly--and whom I know is looking down on him today with tremendous pride and love.

And it is for these reasons--far more than for his longevity--that we honor him today.

But anyone who knows Senator Byrd realizes that these words of praise are not sought because, despite his well-earned title of Senate Historian--Senator Byrd is not one to dwell on the past. He is a forward thinker.

For him, this special day is really just another day at the office.

Because as Robert Byrd knows best of all--there are crucial issues to debate. Problems to solve. And many more votes to be cast.

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

Mr. President, before he leaves the floor, I wanted to say to my colleague from Delaware that he painted a very strong case of what we ought to be doing on the Senate floor. Without reading a note, he ticked off a list of six or seven things or eight things that we really need to take care of, and I just wanted to thank him very much.

I rise today to oppose the proposed constitutional amendment on marriage. I oppose it. I think it is divisive. I think it is unnecessary. I want to lay out the reasons.

First of all, the proposed amendment is nothing more than a cynical election year ploy. I truly believe that, and I think if anyone has followed this every-couple-of-year debate, they know it is true. It pops up like clockwork around election time.

Second, the definition of marriage, as has been stated by Senator Carper from Delaware, who was the Governor of that State, has been determined by the States, and indeed the States are acting in many ways to decide whether they want to legalize gay marriage or legalize domestic partnerships or civil

unions or outlaw all of these things. So States are making their decisions, and they should be respected.

On a personal note, let me say that I have been married for 44 years to the same person. I have to say as someone married for that length of time, the fact that two gay people decide they want to take care of each other for the rest of their lives and care about each other for the rest of their lives, that doesn't threaten my marriage one bit. It doesn't threaten me. It doesn't make me worry about my marriage. My marriage is too strong for that. The fact is, if someone feels their marriage is threatened because two gay people care about each other, then their problems go way deeper than they are caring to admit.

Throughout our Nation's history, we have only amended the Constitution to extend rights and equality, and that is an important point. So I think we have established in this debate that the States are taking care of this issue, and they are coming out in all different places. That is the way it ought to be.

So here we are, June 2006, with only a few precious months left on the Senate calendar, and we are facing some very serious issues at a critical time in our history. It is our duty to respond to the American people and their needs. I truly believe that this President and the Republican leadership are ignoring the needs of the American people, and that is why we see the lowest ratings ever--I think ever--for this particular Congress and very low ratings for the President.

For example, what do President Bush and the Republican leadership say to the families of our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan who want to know when their loved ones will be coming home? Why aren't we talking about that instead of an issue that is being handled by the States? Maybe they don't answer that question because they don't want to say that the war in Iraq has killed and wounded over 20,000 American soldiers, and there is no end in sight to the war.

That brings up an issue that I care a lot about, which is the state of our military men and women. If you want to talk about their marriages for a minute, why don't we do that? Divorces are up, way up, among families who are deployed to these war zones. Families are suffering. The divorce rate between 2000 and 2004 nearly doubled in the Army, and it did not double in the Army because two people who happen to be of the same sex care about each other and want to take care of each other for the rest of their lives. That is not why military marriages are failing. They are under stress, impossible stress, the hard-to-imagine stress of being deployed again and again and again, going out on a battlefield with antidepressants being handed out to them. That is why they are suffering. That is why we see their marriages breaking up and their children crying themselves to sleep every night. But, oh no, we are not talking about that. We are talking about an issue that is being handled by the States.

I don't understand why this administration will not talk about these issues. Why won't they talk about the fact that we have lost our focus in Afghanistan, despite the fact that a resurgent Taliban has vowed to step up attacks during coming months and we are seeing such a resurgence of the Taliban there. Why aren't we discussing that instead of a cynical and divisive and unnecessary constitutional amendment about something that is being taken care of by the States?

What do President Bush and the Republican leadership say about our security here at home? What they don't want to say is that nearly 5 years after 9/11 they still have not adopted the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. Shouldn't we be discussing ways to secure our ports and our rails, and ways to track foreign visitors in the U.S., instead of this cynical, divisive and unnecessary constitutional amendment on a subject that is being handled by the Governors and by the States?

Why do President Bush and the Republican leadership say nothing about gas prices? Why are they doing nothing about gas prices? Maybe it is because they don't want to say that they don't have any solutions--like raising fuel economy standards in a meaningful way or strongly promoting the use of hybrid cars or flex-fuel vehicles so we use less gasoline. This President tomorrow could issue an Executive order that says all the cars that are bought by Federal taxpayers for the Federal fleet have to be the most fuel efficient cars available. They are not doing that. They would rather talk about this amendment, which is about a subject that is being handled by the States.

What does the President and what do the Republicans and the leadership say to the millions of Americans who need access to affordable health care? They don't want to talk about that. They want to talk about this divisive amendment. Maybe it is because they have no clue of what to do, even though health care costs continue to be a tremendous burden on our small businesses and our individuals and our families, and the prescription drug benefit is rife with problems.

Tomorrow we could vote to give Medicare the power and the authority to negotiate for lower drug prices, which would save that program millions, and we would be able to make the program stronger and not put a halt to the benefits, which is called a doughnut hole, just when the sickest patients need more. Oh, no, they would rather talk about an amendment on a divisive subject that is being handled by the States.

Why don't they talk about the fact that our families are struggling to pay for college tuition for their children? They don't want to talk about that because they have failed to help America's families pay for college, despite the fact that tuition is becoming hugely expensive and more expensive each and every year. As a matter of fact, President Bush just signed a tax law that makes college loans more expensive. But, oh no, we can't talk about that. We are going to talk about a divisive amendment on a subject that is being handled by the States.

Why don't they want to talk about our fiscal situation? Why don't they? They don't want to say that as a result of their policies, the policies of this administration and my Republican friends, we now have seen the surpluses that were left to them, to their stewardship, turn into deficits as far as the eye could see. They are projected to hit well over $300 billion, and the public debt stands at an eye-popping $8.4 trillion. When they got the reins of Government there were going to be surpluses as far as the eye can see. Now there are deficits as far as the eye can see.

They don't want to say that it is this administration's failed policies that will leave our children and grandchildren with a bill for the tax cuts to the wealthiest people, tax cuts that we can't afford.

How do they really respond to the concerns and the anxieties of the American people, anxieties and concerns that we see in poll after poll? This is not Democratic polls or Republican polls, these are everybody's polls. People are worried. They say we are on the wrong track.

But this is what this administration says, and this Congress, they say: Sorry, America, please hold. Please hold, America, while the Senate takes time to consider a constitutional amendment that has nothing to do with the most serious issues you face today. Why? Because they need to score political points. Please hold, America, because, although we have been elected to serve you and unite you, we would rather divide you for our own partisan interests.

If I were a conservative I would be insulted today, insulted by the fact that I am being used as a political pawn by this President and the Republican leadership. I would be insulted.

The issue of marriage has been determined by the States. For those people who worried about it, there was DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act. I believed at the time that wasn't even necessary because I believe the States have the right to make decisions about marriage. But it passed and it has been upheld. So what is the problem? There is not a problem.

From the party that says let the States decide, suddenly the States do not know as much as these Senators here. They know everything, and they are going to amend the Constitution on something that the States are handling.

This, in many ways, is a telling moment for this Senate. With all the issues I have laid out and the issues

that Senator Carper has laid out, there is no planning for these issues. So this Senate is being used as part of a political campaign. I resent that, when we have men and women dying every single day in Iraq, newspaper reporters being blown up. But we have to talk about a subject that is being handled by the States.

As I said before, we have never amended our Constitution to take away rights. We don't do that in America. We are too strong for that. We are too good for that. We are a model of freedom because of that. But that is precisely what is being proposed here, an amendment that is unnecessary because the States are handling this and all this does is divide us instead of uniting us.

Look at some of the great examples of our constitutional amendments.

The Bill of Rights--the first ten amendments--guarantee important liberties to Americans, from freedom of speech to freedom from unwarranted search and seizure to freedom of religion. And the 10th amendment reserves for the States all powers not specifically given to the Federal Government.

The 13th, 14th and 15th amendments corrected the horrific injustices of slavery by giving African-Americans the right to vote and equal protection under the law.

The 19th amendment gave women the right to vote, and the 26th amendment gave 18-year-olds the right to vote.

This short but impressive list of amendments demonstrates that our Constitution is meant to expand, not restrict, freedom and equality.

I want to say to my colleagues that there is something about this debate that has bothered me. As I have listened to some of my colleagues comment in support of this proposed amendment--which is their total right to support--I have been troubled by the suggestion that gay Americans are responsible for a host of problems in our society, from children born out of wedlock to poverty to divorce. These comments are wrong. These comments are wrong. It is wrong to find scapegoats in our great country. Gays and lesbians, they are God's children too. They wake up every morning, they try to do the best to live their lives, the best for the people they love. And they live their lives one day at a time.

We can solve problems such as unintended pregnancies, poverty, divorce, and adoption without stooping to scapegoat and hurt so many people.

If we want to strengthen families, let's strengthen families. Let's help families with their college tuition. Let's help families with their child care. Let's help them by raising the minimum wage. Let's clean up Superfund sites that are near schools. Let's help the 44 million Americans who need health insurance. Let's help those who are reaching retirement age, who are so frightened because the promise of the golden years is not there.

Let's reach out to each other and do that instead of being forced to deal with manufactured political issues which, again, pop up every election year. That sends false hopes out to some Americans who really want this constitutional amendment. They are being used. It also sends out fear and sadness to so many other Americans.

We can do better. We must do better for all Americans.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a resolution to spur a political solution in Iraq and encourage the people of Iraq to provide for their own security through the redeployment of U.S. military forces.

I introduce this resolution with the hope and prayer that we will redeploy U.S. troops from Iraq and end this ill-fated war that has resulted in more than 20,000 U.S. troops killed or wounded.

This resolution speaks for itself. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a resolution to spur a political solution in Iraq and encourage the people of Iraq to provide for their own security through the redeployment of U.S. military forces.

I introduce this resolution with the hope and prayer that we will redeploy U.S. troops from Iraq and end this ill-fated war that has resulted in more than 20,000 U.S. troops killed or wounded.

This resolution speaks for itself. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. President, I oppose the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia.

Mr. Kavanaugh's lack of experience, partisan ideological leanings, lack of judicial temperament, and refusal to adequately answer questions posed by the Judiciary Committee make him unqualified to sit on the second highest court in the country.

Mr. Kavanaugh is a young lawyer who has spent most of his career in partisan positions. He lacks substantive courtroom experience and has never tried a case to a verdict. In fact, a judge before whom he appeared characterized Mr. Kavanaugh work as ``less than adequate'' and at the experience level of an associate.

Nor is Mr. Kavanaugh a noted legal scholar. The highlight of his career has been working with Kenneth Starr in the Office of the Solicitor General and at the Office of the Independent Counsel, where he spent 4 years and coauthored the infamous Starr Report.

Upon further review the nonpartisan American Bar Association panel downgraded Mr. Kavanaugh's rating from ``well-qualified'' to ``qualified.'' He was described by interviewees as ``sanctimonious,'' and ``immovable and very stubborn and frustrating to deal with on some issues.'' These are not qualities that make for a good judge. His low rating and nonjudicious demeanor put him in stark contrast to the majority of appointments to the DC Circuit who received ``well- qualified'' ratings and respectful reviews from the American Bar Association review panel.

The President can and should do better than this. The country deserves better than this.

Mr. President, had I been present to vote on the nomination of Gen. Michael Hayden to be Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, I would have cast a vote of ``no''.

I oppose General Hayden's nomination because of his role in the administration's program to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance on U.S. persons--a practice I believe is unlawful under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

During his nomination hearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee, General Hayden admitted to participating in the design of the electronic surveillance program during his tenure as director of the National Security Agency. And as the Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence, General Hayden became the chief advocate for the electronic surveillance program, even taking the unusual step of appearing before the National Press Club to defend the Administration's program.

We are all united in fighting terrorism, but we can do it in a legal and constitutional way that gets the bad guys and protects our values and freedoms.

While I oppose the nomination of General Hayden because of the controversy surrounding the electronic surveillance program, I wish him the very best and hope that he will turn out to be a strong and independent leader at the CIA.

But I also hope that the Intelligence Committees in the House and Senate will conduct careful and thorough oversight over General Hayden and the CIA to ensure that the civil liberties of U.S. citizens are protected.

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