Floor Statements

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

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

Mr. President, I was listening to the Senator from South Carolina. I thought he was going to make some comments about the vote that just took place on one of the most important issues facing the Senate. Instead, he launched into an attack on Senator Harry Reid.

Shakespeare once said something to this effect: When someone acts that way, he is protesting too much. So Senator Reid must have hit a chord with the Senator from South Carolina, and there are reasons for it.

Senator Reid speaks straight from the heart, straight from the shoulder. He is fighting for the American people. He wants us to fix the mess this President and this Congress made in the Medicare prescription drug benefit. He wants us to take care of our men and women in uniform. He wants to make sure the budgets are balanced. He wants to make sure that our families have health care, that we are moving forward on homeland security, and cleaning up the culture of corruption which has been brought to us by the ruling party. Remember, we have one party that rules Washington.

So I think his remarks must have deeply touched the Senator from South Carolina for him to launch into such a personal attack on the Democratic leader. I stand here and say: Keep it up, Senator Reid. You must be doing something right to elicit that kind of outrageous response.

Mr. President, many of us have been in elected life for more than a decade--in my case, three decades--and we know that when certain issues come before us, they are so profound, they are so important to the people we represent, they are such a watershed that they need to be marked, not rushed.

The vote on Samuel Alito to be a Justice of the Supreme Court is such a moment in our history. Yes, we are having two votes on this nomination, one just completed, which gave me and other opponents of the nomination an opportunity to signal that this nomination should be sent back to the President for a mainstream nominee in the mold of Sandra Day O'Connor.

We fell short of the 41 votes we needed to send this nomination back. But yet I am still glad I had the opportunity to go on record twice. And do you know why? Because the Supreme Court belongs to the people of America. It is their court. It is not George Bush's court. It is not any Senator's court. It is the people's court, and the highest court. It is their freedoms that are at stake, their protection from a power- hungry Executive, their right to clean air, to clean water, and safe communities, their right to make private decisions with their families, not with Senators and Congressmen and a President or Vice President breathing down their necks.

So although we knew the votes were not there for the filibuster of Judge Alito, we felt it was appropriate to use that historic Senate debate tool so the American people would know that we were willing to pursue even a losing effort because the stakes are so high.

Tomorrow, we will cast our votes on the nomination itself, and I want the record to reflect why I will be voting no.

Mr. President. Every judicial nomination is important, but rarely are the stakes as high for the Nation as they are in the case of the nomination of Samuel Alito to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.

We now have a divided Court, a divided Congress, and a divided electorate, as evidenced in the last two Presidential elections. Unfortunately, we also have a President who failed to remember his promise, which he made in the campaign of 2000: to govern from the center--to be ``a uniter, not a divider.'' If he had kept that promise, he would not have nominated Samuel Alito.

Judge Alito was nominated to take the seat of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the first woman on the Court. She has long been the swing vote, and a commonsense voice of moderation, in some of the most important cases to come before the Court, including a woman's right to choose, civil rights, and freedom of religion.

The right thing to do for the court and for the Nation would have been to nominate someone in the mold of Justice O'Connor, and that is what the President should have done.

Let me be clear: I do not deny Judge Alito's judicial qualifications. He is experienced, intelligent, and capable. His

family should be proud of him, and all Americans should be proud that the American dream was there for him and for the Alito family.

But these facts do not outweigh my deep conviction that Judge Alito's extreme views of the law make him the wrong person for this job.

As a Senator, I have no more solemn duty than to vote on a nomination for the Supreme Court of the United States. These are lifetime appointments, with extraordinary power to shape the law of the land, and to affect the lives of Americans, not just those living now, but for generations to come.

In the 218 years since our Constitution was adopted, our Nation has made great strides toward achieving the more perfect Union that the Founding Fathers dreamed of Women were given the right to vote. African-Americans were given civil rights. A right to personal privacy has been recognized for women and families. The accused have a right to counsel. Congress has been recognized to have the power to enact laws protecting the health and safety of the people. This has led to a cleaner environment, safer workplaces and communities, and better health care for all Americans.

We who have enjoyed the fruits of this progress owe it to future generations not to let it slip away. Thus, in a vote such as this, which will have long lasting effects, it is incumbent on us to consider what those effects might be.

If Judge Alito is confirmed, he will join the far right wing of the Court now led by Justices Scalia and Thomas. Should their extreme views of the Constitution ultimately prevail--as they may well do in the very near future--I fear they will take our Nation on a backward path-- toward a time of fewer rights for individuals and greater restrictions on Congress's ability to protect the public health and welfare. In addition, I believe that Judge Alito will support Justice Thomas's radical ideas about stronger Presidential powers.

In short, our children could end up living in a very different America from the one we treasure. What kind of Nation would that be?

Abortion undoubtedly would be illegal in many States. Dangerous automatic weapons might become broadly available. It might be almost impossible to get a claim of workplace discrimination to a jury. Search warrants might not have to be issued, or if they were, wouldn't have to be specific. The Nation's most important environmental laws might be made toothless for lack of enforcement in the courts. Trial by jury, one of the most precious of all rights guaranteed to Americans by their Constitution, could be tainted by racism in the selection of Jurors.

This is a harsh picture, but I believe it is not unrealistic. If you consider where the Court is now and consider Judge Alito's record and views carefully, you must conclude, as I did, that approving his nomination could have dire consequences for our Nation.

In reviewing Judge Alito's record, I asked myself whether, as a Supreme Court Justice, he would be likely to vote to preserve fundamental American liberties, values, and interests for all the people.

Would Justice Alito vote to uphold Congress's constitutional authority to pass laws to protect Americans' health, safety, and welfare? The record says no. When his Third Circuit Court of Appeals voted to uphold a ban on machine gun possession, Judge Alito voted to strike it down because he said Congress lacked the power to enact such a law. His colleagues on the court criticized him, saying his position ran counter to ``a basic tenet of the constitutional separation of powers.''

Would Justice Alito vote to protect the right to privacy, especially a woman's reproductive freedom? Judge Alito's record says no. We have all heard about Judge Alito's 1985 job application which he wrote that the Constitution does not protect the right of a woman to choose. When given the chance to disavow that position during the hearings, he refused to do so. He had the chance to say, as Judge Roberts did, that Roe v. Wade is settled law, and he refused.

When given the chance to explain his dissent in the Casey decision, in which he argued that the Pennsylvania spousal notification requirement was not an undue burden on a woman seeking an abortion because it would affect only a small number of women, he refused to back away from his position. The Supreme Court, by a 5 to 4 vote, found the provision to be unconstitutional, and Justice O'Connor, cowriting for the Court, criticized the faulty analysis supported by Judge Alito, saying that ``the analysis does not end with the one percent of women'' affected. ``it begins there.''

Judge Alito's ominous statements and narrow-minded reasoning clearly signal a hostility to women's rights, and portend a move back toward the dark days when abortion was illegal in many States, and many women died as a result.

In the 21st century, it is astounding that a nominee for the Supreme Court would not view Roe v. Wade as settled law. The fundamental principle of Roe--a woman's right to make reproductive choices for herself--has been reaffirmed many times since it was decided.

Would Justice Alito vote to protect Americans from illegal searches in violation of the fourth amendment? Judge Alito's record says no. In a 2004 case, he found that a police strip search of a 10-year-old girl was lawful, even though she was not named in the warrant. Judge Alito said that even if the warrant did not actually authorize the search of the girl, ``a reasonable police officer could certainly have read the warrant as doing so . . .''

This cavalier attitude toward one of our most basic constitutional guarantees--the fourth amendment right against unreasonable searches-- is stunning. As Judge Alito's own court said regarding warrants, ``a particular description is the touchstone of the fourth Amendment.'' Americans have reason to fear a Supreme Court justice who does not understand this fundamental constitutional protection.

Would Justice Alito vote to let citizens stop companies from polluting their communities? The record says no. In a case involving toxic discharges into a major river, Judge Alito voted to stop citizens from taking the polluting company to court, as they were authorized to do under the Clean Water Act. Fortunately, in another case several years later, the Supreme Court overturned Alito's narrow reading of the law.

Would Justice Alito vote to let working women and men have their day in court against employers who discriminate against them? Judge Alito's record says no. In a 1997 case, Judge Alito was the only judge to say that a hotel employee claiming racial discrimination could not take her case to a jury. His colleagues on the court said that if his standard for getting to a jury were required of a plaintiff, it would ``eviscerate'' title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination in the workplace.

In another case, a female employee sued for discrimination, alleging that after she complained about incidents of sexual harassment, she was demoted and marginalized to the point that she was forced to quit. By a vote of 10 to 1, the Third Circuit found for the plaintiff. Guess who was the one? Only Judge Alito thought the employee should have to show that discrimination was the main cause of the employer's action. Using his standard would make it almost impossible for a woman claiming discrimination in the workplace to get to trial.

Would Justice Alito be an effective check on an overreaching executive branch? Judge Alito's record says no. As a Judiciary Department lawyer, Alito wrote a memorandum proposing that the President assert his own interpretations of statutes by issuing ``signing statements'' when the laws are enacted. He said this would give the Executive ``the last word'' on interpreting the laws.

The administration is now asserting vast powers, including spying on American citizens without seeking warrants, in clear violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, violating international treaties, and ignoring laws that ban torture.

We need Justices who will put a check on such overreaching by the Executive, not rubberstamp it. Judge Alito's record and his answers at the hearings raise very serious doubts about his commitment to being a strong check on an ``imperial President.''

During the hearings, we all felt great compassion for Mrs. Alito when she became emotional in reaction to the

tough questions her husband faced in the Judiciary Committee.

Everyone in politics knows how hard it is for families when a loved one is asked tough questions. It is part of a difficult process, and whoever said politics is not for the faint of heart was right.

Emotions have run high during this process. That is understandable. But I wish the press had focused more on the tears of those who will be affected if Judge Alito becomes Justice Alito and his extreme views prevail.

I worry about the tears of a worker who, having failed to get a promotion because of discrimination, is denied the opportunity to pursue her claim in court.

I worry about the tears of a woman who is forced by law to tell her husband that she wants to terminate her pregnancy and is afraid that he will leave her or stop supporting her.

I worry about the tears of a young girl who is strip searched in her own home by police who have no valid warrant.

I worry about the tears of a mentally retarded man who has been brutally assaulted in the workplace, when his claim of workplace harassment is dismissed by the court simply because his lawyer failed to file a well-written brief on his behalf.

These are real cases in which Judge Alito has spoken. Fortunately, his views did not prevail in these cases. But if he sits on the Supreme Court, he will have a much more powerful voice. His voice that will replace one of moderation and balance, and he will join the voices of other Justices who share his severe views.

Perhaps the most important statement Judge Alito made during the entire hearing process was when he told the Judiciary Committee that he expects to be the same kind of Justice on the Supreme Court as he has been a judge on the Circuit Court.

That is precisely the problem. As a judge, Samuel Alito seemed to approach his cases with an analytical coldness that reflected no concern for the human consequences of his reasoning.

Listen to what he said about a case involving an African-American man convicted of murder by an all white jury in a courtroom where the prosecutors had eliminated all African-American jurors in many previous murder trials as well.

Judge Alito dismissed this evidence of racial bias and said that the jury makeup was no more relevant than the fact that lefthanders have won five of the last six Presidential elections. When asked about this analogy during the hearings, he said it ``went to the issue of statistics . . . (which) is a branch of mathematics, and there are ways to analyze statistics so that you draw sound conclusions from them. . . .''

That response would have been appropriate for a college math professor, but it is deeply troubling from a potential Supreme Court Justice.

As the great Jurist and Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. wrote in 1881:

The life of the law has not been logic; it has been

experience . . . The law embodies the story of a nation's

development through many centuries, and it cannot be dealt

with as if it contained only the axioms and corollaries of a

book of mathematics.

What Holmes meant is that the law is a living thing, that those who interpret it must do so with wisdom and humanity, and with an understanding of the consequences of their judgments for the lives of the people they affect.

It is with deep regret that I conclude that Judge Alito' s judicial philosophy lacks this wisdom, humanity, and moderation. He is simply too far out of the mainstream in his thinking. His opinions demonstrate neither the independence of mind nor the depth of heart that I believe we need in our Supreme Court Justices, particularly at this crucial time in our Nation's history.

That is why I must oppose this nomination.

Mr. President, I take this opportunity to recognize the Chinese Lunar New Year. 2006 is the Year of the Dog.

The Chinese calendar is based on the cycles of the sun and the moon, and the Chinese Lunar New Year is the most important of Chinese festivals. Celebration begins on the first day of the first moon of the lunar calendar and ends on the full moon 15 days later, with the Lantern Festival. In order to prepare for the new year, families perform several rituals to cleanse the home and the spirit, to sweep away misfortune and to welcome in the new year with good luck, health, happiness and prosperity.

The Chinese lunar calendar is associated with a 12-year animal zodiac. According to ancient Chinese legend, Buddha asked all the animals to meet him on the Chinese Lunar New Year. Twelve animals came, and Buddha rewarded each animal by naming a year after each one. The 12 animals--Rat, Ox, Tiger, Rabbit, Dragon, Snake, Horse, Sheep, Monkey, Rooster, Dog and Pig--represent a cyclical concept of time. He told each animal that the people born in their year would inherit some of the personality traits of that animal. It is said that those born in the Year of the Dog tend to be loyal, kind, and generous.

America is rich with the cultural traditions of many countries. In California, the Chinese-American community plays a vibrant and important part of our State's history. Celebrating the Chinese Lunar New Year allows us to embrace this significant and most important cultural festival of the Chinese calendar.

I hope that the Chinese Lunar New Year brings good health, happiness, peace and prosperity to all. I give my very best wishes for an auspicious New Year.

Mr. President, yesterday in Burbank, CA, I gave a major address before my constituents announcing my opposition to the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Today I am announcing my opposition to the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court of the United States.

According to article II of the Constitution, Justices of the Supreme Court may not be appointed by the President without the advice and consent of the Senate. So it is our solemn duty to consider each nomination carefully, keeping in mind the interests of the American people.

This nomination is particularly crucial because the stakes have rarely been so high.

First, consider the context in which this nomination comes before us. The seat that Judge Alito has been nominated for is now held by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who came to the Court in 1981.

For years, Justice O'Connor has provided the tie-breaking vote and a commonsense voice of reason in some of the most important cases to come before the Court, including a woman's right to choose, civil rights, and freedom of religion.

Second, consider the tumultuous political climate in our Nation. President Bush understood that in 2000 when he promised to govern from the center, and be ``a uniter, not a divider.'' Sadly, this nomination shows that he has forgotten that promise because it is not from the center and it is not uniting the Nation.

The right thing to do would have been to give us a justice in the mold of Justice O'Connor, and that is what the President should have done.

Let me be clear: I do not deny Judge Alito's judicial qualifications. He has been a government lawyer and judge for more than 20 years and the American Bar Association rated him well qualified. He is an intelligent and capable person. His family should be proud of him and all Americans should be proud that the American dream was there for the Alito family.

But after reviewing the hearing record and the record of his statements, writings and rulings over the past 24 years, I am convinced that Judge Alito is the wrong person for this job.

I am deeply concerned about how Justice Alito will impact the ability of other families to live the American dream to be assured of privacy in their homes and their personal lives, to be secure in their neighborhoods, to have fair treatment in the workplace, and to have confidence that the power of the executive branch will be checked.

As I reviewed Judge Alito's record, I asked whether he will vote to preserve fundamental American liberties and values.

Will Justice Alito vote to uphold Congress's constitutional power to pass laws to protect Americans' health, safety, and welfare? Judge Alito's record says no.

In the 1996 Rybar case, Judge Alito voted to strike down the Federal ban on the transfer or possession of machine guns because he believed it exceeded Congress's power under the Commerce Clause. His Third Circuit colleagues sharply criticized his dissent and said that it ran counter to ``a basic tenet of the constitutional separation of powers.'' And Judge Alito's extremist view has been rejected by six other circuit courts and the Supreme Court. Judge Alito stood alone and failed to protect our families.

In a case concerning worker protection, Judge Alito was again in the minority when he said that Federal mine health and safety standards did not apply to a coal processing site. He tried to explain it as just a ``technical issue of interpretation.'' I fear for the safety of our workers if Judge Alito's narrow, technical reading of the law should ever prevail.

Will Justice Alito vote to protect the right to privacy, especially a woman's reproductive freedom? Judge Alito's record says no.

We have all heard about Judge Alito's 1985 job application, in which he wrote that the Constitution does not protect the right of a woman to choose. He was given the chance to disavow that position during the hearings and he refused to do so. He had the chance to say, as Judge Roberts did, that Roe v. Wade is settled law, and he refused.

He had the chance to explain his dissent in the Casey decision, in which he argued that the Pennsylvania spousal notification requirement was not an undue burden on a woman seeking an abortion because it would affect only a small number of women, but he refused to back away from his position. The Supreme Court, by a 5 to 4 vote, found the provision to be unconstitutional, and Justice O'Connor, co-writing for the Court, criticized the faulty analysis supported by Judge Alito, saying that ``the analysis does not end with the one percent of women'' affected . . . ``it begins there.''

To my mind, Judge Alito's ominous statements and narrow-minded reasoning clearly signal a hostility to women's rights, and portend a move back toward the dark days when abortion was illegal in many states, and many women died as a result. In the 21st century, it is astounding that a Supreme Court nominee would not view Roe v. Wade as settled law when its fundamental principle a woman's right to choose-- has been reaffirmed many times since it was decided.

Will Justice Alito vote to protect Americans from unconstitutional searches? Judge Alito's record says no.

In Doe v. Groody in 2004, he said a police strip search of a 10-year- old girl was lawful, even though their search warrant didn't name her. Judge Alito said that even if the warrant did not actually authorize the search of the

girl, ``a reasonable police officer could certainly have read the warrant as doing so . . .'' This casual attitude toward one of our most basic constitutional guarantees--the fourth amendment right against unreasonable searches--is almost shocking. As Judge Alito's own Third Circuit Court said regarding warrants, ``a particular description is the touchstone of the Fourth Amendment.'' We certainly do not need Supreme Court Justices who do not understand this fundamental constitutional protection.

Will Justice Alito vote to let citizens stop companies from polluting their communities? Judge Alito's record says no.

In the Magnesium Elektron case, Judge Alito voted to make it harder for citizens to sue for toxic emissions that violate the Clean Water Act. Fortunately, in another case several years later, the Supreme Court rejected the Third Circuit and Alito's narrow reading of the law. Judge Alito doesn't seem to care about a landmark environmental law.

Will Justice Alito vote to let working women and men have their day in court against employers who discriminate against them? Judge Alito's record says no.

In 1997, in the Bray case, Judge Alito was the only judge on the Third Circuit to say that a hotel employee claiming racial discrimination could not take her case to a jury.

In the Sheridan case, a female employee sued for discrimination, alleging that after she complained about incidents of sexual harassment, she was demoted and marginalized to the point that she was forced to quit. By a vote of 10 to 1, the Third Circuit found for the plaintiff.

Guess who was the one? Only Judge Alito thought the employee should have to show that discrimination was the ``determinative cause'' of the employer's action. Using his standard would make it almost impossible for a woman claiming discrimination in the workplace to get to trial.

Finally, will Justice Alito be independent from the executive branch that appointed him, and be a vote against power grabs by the president? Judge Alito's record says no.

As a lawyer in the Reagan Justice Department, he authored a memo suggesting a new way for the President to encroach on Congress's lawmaking powers. He said that when the President signs a law, he should make a statement about the law, giving it his own interpretation, whether it was consistent with what Congress had written or not. He wrote that this would ``get in the last word on questions of interpretation'' of the law. In the hearings, Judge Alito refused to back away from this memo.

When asked whether he believed the President could invade another country, in the absence of an imminent threat, without first getting the approval of the American people, of Congress, Judge Alito refused to rule it out.

When asked if the President had the power to authorize someone to engage in torture, Alito refused to answer.

The administration is now asserting vast powers, including spying on American citizens without seeking warrants--in clear violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act--violating international treaties, and ignoring laws that ban torture. We need Justices who will put a check on such overreaching by the executive, not rubberstamp it. Judge Alito's record and his answers at the hearings raise very serious doubts about his commitment to being a strong check on an `imperial President.'

In addition to these substantive matters, I remain concerned about Judge Alito's answers regarding his membership in the Concerned Alumni of Princeton and his failure to recuse himself from the Vanguard case, which he had promised to do.

During the hearings, we all felt great compassion for Mrs. Alito when she became emotional in reaction to the tough questions her husband faced in the Judiciary Committee. Everyone in politics knows how hard it is for families when a loved one is asked tough questions. It is part of a difficult process, and whoever said politics is not for the faint of heart was right.

Emotions have run high during this process. That is understandable. But I wish the press had focused more on the tears of those who will be affected if Judge Alito becomes Justice Alito and his out-of-the- mainstream views prevail.

I worry about the tears of a worker who, having failed to get a promotion because of discrimination, is denied the opportunity to pursue her claim in court.

I worry about the tears of a mentally ill woman who is forced by law to tell her husband that she wants to terminate her pregnancy and is afraid that he will leave her or stop supporting her.

I worry about the tears of a young girl who is strip searched in her own home by police who have no valid warrant.

I worry about the tears of a mentally retarded man, who has been brutally assaulted in his workplace, when his claim of workplace harassment is dismissed by the court simply because his lawyer failed to file a well-written brief on his behalf.

These are real cases in which Judge Alito has spoken. Fortunately, he did not prevail in these cases. But if he goes to the Supreme Court, he will have a much more powerful voice--a radical voice that will replace a voice of moderation and balance.

Perhaps the most important statement Judge Alito made during the entire hearing process was when he told the Judiciary Committee that he expects to be the same kind of Justice on the Supreme Court as he has been a judge on the Circuit Court.

That is precisely the problem. As a judge, Samuel Alito seemed to approach his cases with an analytical coldness that reflected no concern for the human consequences of his reasoning.

Listen to what he said about a case involving an African-American man convicted of murder by an all-White jury in a courtroom where the prosecutors had eliminated all African-American jurors in many previous murder trials as well.

Judge Alito dismissed this evidence of racial bias and said that the jury makeup was no more relevant than the fact that left-handers have won five of the last six Presidential elections. When asked about this analogy during the hearings, he said it ``went to the issue of statistics . . . (which) is a branch of mathematics, and there are ways to analyze statistics so that you draw sound conclusions from them. . . .''

That response would have been appropriate for a college math professor, but it is deeply troubling from a potential Supreme Court Justice.

As the great jurist and Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. wrote in 1881, ``The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience . . . The law embodies the story of a nation's development through many centuries, and it cannot be dealt with as if it contained only the axioms and corollaries of a book of mathematics.''

What Holmes meant is that the law is a living thing, that those who interpret it must do so with wisdom and humanity, and with an understanding of the consequences of their judgments for the lives of the people they affect.

It is with deep regret that I conclude that Judge Alito's judicial philosophy lacks this wisdom, humanity and moderation. He is simply too far out of the mainstream in his thinking. His opinions demonstrate neither the independence of mind nor the depth of heart that I believe we need in our Supreme Court Justices, particularly at this crucial time in our Nation's history.

That is why I will oppose this nomination.

Mr. President, if this Senate is going to operate and function, it has to follow its own rules. It is very obvious that including drilling in a wildlife refuge in a military bill is not following our own rules. It is no wonder the people in the country are cynical. It is wrong to do this.

Members should stand on line, do it the right way. If Members want a bill passed, do it the right way. This is not a Senate where one person can dictate how things get done.

I hope the Senate would understand when you are discussing a wildlife refuge, which was first set aside by President Eisenhower, that we would do better than putting it into a military bill

that is a must-pass piece of legislation. I am very pleased that Senator Stevens said if he does not get his way on this, and the Senate decides not to include it here, that we will be able to strip that provision and get those funds where they need to go, to our troops.

I am very pleased about that. I hope the Senate will speak strongly in a bipartisan way and vote ``no'' on cloture.

I yield the floor.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation today to provide for the Purple Heart to be awarded to all prisoners of war who die in captivity, regardless of the cause of death. The ``Honor Our Fallen Prisoners of War Act'' was previously introduced by Representative Bob Filner in the House of Representatives. I am proud to join him in this effort.

The ``Honor Our Fallen Prisoners of War Act'' would make members of the Armed Forces who die in captivity of any circumstance eligible for the Purple Heart. Currently, only prisoners of war who die during their imprisonment of wounds inflicted by an instrument of war are eligible for posthumous Purple Heart recognition. Those who die of starvation, disease, abuse, or other causes during captivity are not.

I believe this is an injustice to the thousands of POWs who paid the ultimate price in service to our Nation. The purpose of the Purple Heart is to honor those who are killed or wounded in action as the result of an act of an enemy of the United States. It makes no sense that prisoner of war camps--where thousands of Americans have been held against their will and have endured great suffering at the hands of enemy forces--are not considered a battlefield.

The legislation is retro-active to December 7, 1941 and would therefore include all POWs who have died in captivity since World War

Mr. President, each year Congress appropriates millions of dollars to institutions of higher learning that serve minority students. Currently, funds go to historically Black colleges and universities, Hispanic-serving institutions, tribally controlled colleges and universities, and Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian- serving institutions. These funds--which exceeded $890 million in fiscal year 2005--

help institutions provide more higher education opportunities for low- income minority students.

For schools that serve a large number of low-income Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, however, Federal assistance is not available. A need is not being served.

Over 42 percent of Cambodian Americans, almost 35 percent of Laotian Americans and 25 percent of Vietnamese Americans live in poverty. And the graduation rates among these populations are low. Only 13.8 percent of Vietnamese Americans, 5.8 percent of Laotian Americans, 6.1 percent of Cambodian Americans, and 5.1 percent of Hmong have college degrees.

So, today, I am introducing the Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders Higher Education Enhancement Act. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senator Akaka.

This legislation creates a new Federal grant program for institutions where Asian and Pacific Islander students make up at least 10 percent of the undergraduate student body. Priority will be given based on the number of low-income students.

The grants--authorized at $30 million in the first year, and such sums as necessary for the next 4 years--could be used for a variety of purposes, including outreach to secondary and elementary school students, curriculum development, tutoring, counseling, and student support services.

Mr. President, we need to make college accessible for low-income Asian American students as we do for with other minority students. This bill is an important step toward this goal.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation today to provide for the Purple Heart to be awarded to all prisoners of war who die in captivity, regardless of the cause of death. The ``Honor Our Fallen Prisoners of War Act'' was previously introduced by Representative Bob Filner in the House of Representatives. I am proud to join him in this effort.

The ``Honor Our Fallen Prisoners of War Act'' would make members of the Armed Forces who die in captivity of any circumstance eligible for the Purple Heart. Currently, only prisoners of war who die during their imprisonment of wounds inflicted by an instrument of war are eligible for posthumous Purple Heart recognition. Those who die of starvation, disease, abuse, or other causes during captivity are not.

I believe this is an injustice to the thousands of POWs who paid the ultimate price in service to our Nation. The purpose of the Purple Heart is to honor those who are killed or wounded in action as the result of an act of an enemy of the United States. It makes no sense that prisoner of war camps--where thousands of Americans have been held against their will and have endured great suffering at the hands of enemy forces--are not considered a battlefield.

The legislation is retro-active to December 7, 1941 and would therefore include all POWs who have died in captivity since World War

Mr. President, each year Congress appropriates millions of dollars to institutions of higher learning that serve minority students. Currently, funds go to historically Black colleges and universities, Hispanic-serving institutions, tribally controlled colleges and universities, and Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian- serving institutions. These funds--which exceeded $890 million in fiscal year 2005--

help institutions provide more higher education opportunities for low- income minority students.

For schools that serve a large number of low-income Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, however, Federal assistance is not available. A need is not being served.

Over 42 percent of Cambodian Americans, almost 35 percent of Laotian Americans and 25 percent of Vietnamese Americans live in poverty. And the graduation rates among these populations are low. Only 13.8 percent of Vietnamese Americans, 5.8 percent of Laotian Americans, 6.1 percent of Cambodian Americans, and 5.1 percent of Hmong have college degrees.

So, today, I am introducing the Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders Higher Education Enhancement Act. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senator Akaka.

This legislation creates a new Federal grant program for institutions where Asian and Pacific Islander students make up at least 10 percent of the undergraduate student body. Priority will be given based on the number of low-income students.

The grants--authorized at $30 million in the first year, and such sums as necessary for the next 4 years--could be used for a variety of purposes, including outreach to secondary and elementary school students, curriculum development, tutoring, counseling, and student support services.

Mr. President, we need to make college accessible for low-income Asian American students as we do for with other minority students. This bill is an important step toward this goal.

Will the Senator yield?

Mr. President, my understanding is I am now recognized for 30 minutes; is that correct?

I ask unanimous consent that following my remarks, Senator Kyl be recognized for up to 15 minutes, to be followed by Senator Bond for up to 15 minutes, Senator Feinstein for up to 20 minutes as in morning business, and that the time not be charged against the bill.

I would add that.

Mr. President, I believe my unanimous consent is pending, and it does include the request of the Senator from North Dakota.

Thank you very much.

Mr. President, I would like to go back to the order, if we can. I was about to speak for 30 minutes as was already agreed to by the Senate. I would like to proceed.

Does the Senator want me to yield for purposes of a parliamentary inquiry? I yield, without losing my right to the floor, for a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. President, I am happy to tell the Senator. I asked for time, on the completion of my 30 minutes, for Senator Kyl to speak for up to 15 minutes, followed by Senator Bond for up to 15 minutes, followed by Senator Feinstein for up to 20 minutes as in morning business, and that the time not be charged against the bill, and at that time the time would be charged equally.

Thank you, Mr. President.

PATRIOT Act

Mr. President, folks are watching us so close to Christmas, so close to Hanukkah time and wondering why we are here so late in the year. It is very unusual for this to happen. I would like to say that we are here, in my view, because there is a disinclination on the part of the Republican leadership to sit down with the Democrats on the PATRIOT Act, fix two provisions of that act, fix it so our constituents don't have to worry that their library records will be sought, if there is no reason to do that, or their bookstore records or their health records or their financial records without a check and balance on that power; and that if their home is searched they would be so advised within a 7- day period.

But Senator Frist, at this point, seems to keep this issue alive. I hope we can resolve that by a short-term extension of the act.

Every single Member who voted to stop the final vote voted with the understanding that we would, in fact, extend the PATRIOT Act for 3 months. I am hoping that will happen so we can get done with that without a vote, as far as I understand it. Everyone wants to continue the PATRIOT Act, but there is a majority, I believe, who wants to fix these two provisions out of the many provisions.

We are also here because one Senator has gotten drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in the conference report on the military bill, on the Defense appropriations bill. That bill funds our troops. It is very important. Instead of allowing that to just go forward--and again that would go

forward probably without even a minute's debate, and we could finish that up quickly--instead, this Senator wants to give a very special gift this Christmas season to the oil companies. We know, if anything, they don't deserve a gift. They are laughing all the way to the bank. But this one Senator wants to give them another gift, a really special one with an enormous bow on top.

I hope that will happen. But that is another reason we are here.

We are here because this is a budget-cutting bill that is so onerous--it is on the floor right now--that the Republicans aren't even sure they have the votes to pass it because of what it does to student loans, to Medicare, to things that our people need. They have to fly the Vice President back in order to have him in the Chair because it might be that close. And he may have to cast the deciding vote to cut student loans, to cut Medicare, to cut Medicaid, to cut health to our middle-class families, as well as our working poor families. If that happens, that will be an image all American families will see, the Vice President in the Chair. They couldn't even get their own party to vote for this bill, and it will say more than I ever could on the subject.

Iraq

Mr. President, today, I had hoped to be in California working in the State. I had a very important speech to give on Iraq to a very important group in Los Angeles. Instead I am going to give that talk here for the next few minutes so that my constituents will get the views that I have at this moment in time on that war.

In 1968, Martin Luther King told us:

If we do not act, we shall surely be dragged down the long,

dark and shameful corridors of time reserved for those who

possess . . . strength without sight.

Dr. King was talking about ending the Vietnam war. But 40 years later his warning is increasingly relevant to the Iraq war.

Strength without sight has now led us into a war based on mistaken intelligence, and down a thorny path of pain for far too long. None of us can afford to be silent.

Again, I want to quote Martin Luther King who said:

Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about

things that matter.

Martin Luther King said:

Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about

things that matter.

We must have the courage to speak out about things that matter, and, if we disagree about things that matter, that is part of the process. But let us heed Dr. King's words. It matters that 2,158 service men and women have given their lives in Iraq, leaving their families grieving. It matters that 16,155 have been wounded, many with scars that will last a lifetime.

It matters that the majority of the American people are demanding a new strategy so that we do not have a war without an end.

We saw 79 Senators from both political parties recently back an amendment saying that it is the Iraqis who should take the lead in providing their own security next year. Next year is a few days away.

I think it matters if 79 Senators vote for that amendment.

I see Senator Levin on the Senate floor. I thank him for that work he put into that amendment because it says very clearly that next year the Iraqis have to take charge of their own destiny.

We heard Congressman Jack Murtha's brave statement against this war, calling it a ``flawed policy wrapped in illusion.''

Jack Murtha is a decorated marine, a war hero who bled on the battlefield, the military's best friend.

Now he advocates redeploying U.S. forces at the earliest possible date--not tomorrow, not in 2 weeks. Estimates are that it will take 6 months to a year--while maintaining a quick-reaction force in the region to be called upon when necessary.

How did the administration and its supporters respond to this hero, Jack Murtha's thoughtful proposal? Congressman Murtha, with his two Purple Hearts and his Bronze Star, was insulted by the White House Press Secretary and branded a coward by the newest Republican Member of the House; branded a coward by the newest Republican Member of the House, a shameful display of partisanship.

People who never bled on the battlefield tried to demean a war hero. That is what we see again and again in this debate.

Instead of thoughtful dialogue about the life-and-death issues in Iraq, the administration lashes out at those who dare disagree with them.

Recently, the Republican National Committee issued a video news release attacking Democrats, including me. I want to thank Senators on the other side of the aisle who said that was wrong. I am used to being attacked, and I normally just ignore these attacks. As a matter of fact, I wear them as badge of honor. But this one was so incendiary that I have to respond.

The ad said Democrats were waving a white flag of surrender in Iraq. And their evidence? One of their pieces of evidence was my statement that we should start reducing our troop strength in Iraq after the Iraqi election.

Guess who else said that very same thing this last weekend: the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, appointed by President Bush. Listen to what he said. President Bush's Ambassador in Iraq said:

We can begin to draw down our forces in the aftermath of

the elections.

That is exactly what I said. Are they going to run an ad against George Bush's hand-picked Ambassador to Iraq who said the same thing that Senator Boxer said?

Democrats aren't waving any white flags, and neither is the Ambassador waving a white flag. We are doing the job that we were elected to do. We have a right and a responsibility to tell the truth, whether the topic is Iraq or any other policy. We have a right--and a responsibility--to wave a warning flag about a war that is making our Nation less secure.

Regardless of how many times I am attacked, I will continue to speak out just as I am doing today.

I have four points to make: First, we must restore our credibility. Our credibility is at almost an all-time low in the world.

If we want the American people to be optimistic, and if we want the nations of the world to consider us a leader to be trusted, our motives must be clear, always; our justifications must be sound; and our policies must reflect our ideals. Our policies must reflect our ideals.

During the Cuban missile crisis, Secretary of State Dean Acheson offered to show Charles de Gaulle of France satellite images of Soviet missiles in Cuba as proof of their existence. President de Gaulle responded by saying:

The word of the President of the United States is good

enough to me.

Today, the word of this President and his administration has been called into question. Frankly, it is hard to believe those words myself when the President or the Secretary of State or the Vice President start to tell their expectations about Iraq. It is very hard for me to believe them. Why is that? I want to believe them. I have served with four Presidents, three of them Republican Presidents. I have never felt like this. I never felt I had to doubt what they were saying when it came to foreign policy.

Here is the reason. Remember all the false expectations the Bush administration pedals? Remember when Secretary Rumsfeld said that the war ``could last six days, six weeks, I doubt six months''? . . . Or that we knew exactly where to find the weapons of mass destruction.

I was sitting 10 feet from the Secretary of Defense when he said: I know exactly where those weapons are. I know the streets they are on. They are right there in Baghdad.

Remember when Vice President Cheney predicted:

. . . my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as

liberators.

Remember when White House Budget Director Mitch Daniels said Iraq will be ``an affordable endeavor'' and it ``will not require sustained aid''?

Remember when the case for weapons of mass destruction was called a ``slam dunk''? Remember Vice President Cheney's now famous assessment that the insurgency was in its ``last throes''? Remember when the President told us about the yellow cake from Niger in a State of the Union Address? Remember when we were told ``mission accomplished''? We weren't told it; it was scrawled on a banner behind the President of the United States as he stood in

his Air Force gear. Who can ever forget that moment?

Remember when we were told that Iraqi oil would pay for the war? And when Secretary Rice said she didn't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud? And when Colin Powell made his forceful presentation before the U.N. Security Council proving the case to the world, proving the case that Saddam Hussein had chemical weapons? He now calls that moment a blot on his record.

I gave you what the members of this administration have told the American people to expect in Iraq. They are zero for 10. I have not even gone through the entire list.

Yet even today, in the light of all this history, the Bush administration refuses to do more than a perfunctory mea culpa. In his last speech, the President took responsibility for going into the war on false intelligence. It took him 2 years to say that. He is 2 years behind the American people who figured that out a long time ago. But I will take it. I will take it.

The President keeps repeating the false statement that Congress saw the same intelligence that he did, even though the CRS, the Congressional Research Service, did a very important study on this matter. They said that is not true. It is a false statement to say that Congress saw the same intelligence he did. The report found that the administration had access to more information than was shared by us.

And the President still does not answer the central question, was the intelligence cherry-picked? In other words, did he pick out the parts of the intelligence that made the case for war? And he hasn't answered whether any of that intelligence was manipulated.

Democrats are insisting we complete the Senate investigation into this matter. Senator Reid actually put the Senate into closed session to insist the Senate Intelligence Committee complete the investigation into whether the President actually misused intelligence or cherry- picked intelligence.

It is important we complete this investigation. It is not about politics. If the intelligence was cherry-picked by this President or manipulated, the American people deserve to know. The Congress will need to act. Why? Because the next time we need to convince the world of an imminent threat, it will be far more difficult unless we clear the air and restore our credibility.

America is more than an economic and a military power. Our ideals have made us a shining light throughout the world for all of those seeking freedom, democracy, and human rights. I believe that moral standing is at risk today. We all saw the horrific photos of Abu Ghraib, which were at odds with everything for which this country stands. I went up to that room to look at those pictures to bear witness. It was one of the most painful experiences I have never had.

We all know what we saw there--and the American people haven't seen half of what we saw; they have only seen a fraction of what we saw. The abuse was disgusting and was at odds with everything for which this country stands. We all know that torture does not produce accurate intelligence or make us more safe. Listen to Senator McCain, who is an expert on this issue. He says torture ``is killing us.'' Amazingly, banning torture was extremely controversial for this administration. Dick Cheney even worked nonstop to exempt the CIA from the torture ban passed by the Congress. Fortunately, we won this one. Again, I say to my Senate colleagues, thank you for standing up, for standing behind Senator McCain on this.

However, we still do not know everything about the secret prisons or secret spying on Americans, all of which chips away at our reputation as a great beacon of freedom and gives us an eerie sense of a secret government. We must not have a secret government. We must not walk away from checks and balances. We now face this issue of our Government spying on Americans without a warrant. This is serious. It must be investigated to restore our credibility.

The other day I was at a forum with John Dean, the former White House counsel to President Nixon during Watergate. When we were asked a question as to whether we believe this President investigating and wiretapping American citizens without a warrant was legal, my remark was: I'm not sure about that. I'm very worried about that. I don't think it is. But I want a hearing. I applauded Arlen Specter, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, for saying we would have it.

This is what John Dean said on videotape and he has since confirmed it: This was the first time he ever heard a President admit to an impeachable offense. That comment by John Dean, who knows more than any other lawyer in this country about an excessive abuse of power by the Executive is very serious. I sent a letter to four scholars, asking them to please tell me if they think John Dean is on the right track or on the wrong track.

Clearly, we must restore our credibility. Second and third, we must reverse the strain on our military and get our budget priorities straight.

This administration says dissent hurts our military. Let me tell you what hurts our military. Our military is fighting so that the Iraqi people have the right to dissent. So to say that our military gets hurt when we dissent makes no sense at all. How proud they must be that they come from a country where people who love the troops on both sides of the aisle are in a rigorous debate. That is what our military wants. They do not want to see a country where we all dance to the same tune.

And they must think it is interesting that even within the parties there are disagreements, that a Joe Lieberman disagrees with a Barbara Boxer, or a Chuck Hagel disagrees with an Orrin Hatch. That is what life in America is about. So when the President or his allies right here say, How dare people dissent, I say, How dare we not, if we believe the path we are on is wrong.

Let me tell you what hurts our military: sending men and women to war without a plan for victory and without the necessary armor and equipment. What hurts our military is stretching it to the breaking point and deploying our soldiers for third and fourth tours of duty. What hurts our military is a lack of candor.

Our men and women in the military serve bravely and skillfully in Iraq. They have sacrificed so much since this war began. We need to honor their sacrifices, not with words but with actions. That means treating their caskets and their families with the respect they deserve.

I want to publicly thank my staff in San Diego who stopped a horrible situation from happening, when a military man in a coffin, slain in Iraq, arrived in San Diego aboard a civilian aircraft, a commercial aircraft. When the plane landed, he was not going to be greeted by his unit. No one was going to be there. And the airline was going to keep him with the cargo, off-loaded with no ceremony, no greeting.

Thank God, his parents--military people--saw this and called us. We stopped it from happening, and we made sure that casket was greeted by his unit.

That is what we need to do. We need to honor our military. It means opening up our eyes to their injuries and getting them the help they need. Medical studies reveal that 17 percent of soldiers returning from Iraq are suffering from mental health problems, including depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder. The VA says that 17,000 Iraq and Afghanistan vets have been diagnosed with mental disorders through February.

I have heard from military people who tell me their loved ones were sent back on to the field of battle when they were diagnosed with post- traumatic stress, and the doctor said: Don't send them back.

Now, 17,000 Iraq and Afghanistan vets have been diagnosed with mental disorders, just through last February. But despite this huge problem, the American Legion--the American Legion--says that mental health programs are being underfunded by $500 million a year.

I offered an amendment to provide these critical resources by canceling future tax cuts for millionaires who have already gotten back tens of thousands of dollars in tax cuts. It sounds reasonable that we would ask a millionaire to help give a veteran the assistance that he or she needs because of mental problems.

Well, my amendment failed. The President says he loves our military,

but he loves tax cuts for millionaires as much or more. They did not weigh in. They did not help us. We could not get it passed.

Let's be clear. To finance a war that has already cost $251 billion, this administration did not ask the wealthiest to do one thing to sacrifice. Under the Bush tax cuts, millionaires got--and listen to this number--$242 billion back. They have gotten it back over the past 5 years.

In the first 2 years of the Iraq war, the average millionaire received $112,000 in tax cuts. And we cannot afford to give a soldier treatment when he comes home, and he is so sick that he might even turn on his own family and hurt them?

This makes me sick, Mr. President. This makes me sick.

The President did not secure enough real financial commitments from other countries. Instead, our needs are being sacrificed and our children and seniors are paying the price.

Talk about waving the white flag of surrender. I want to talk about it. The Republican Congress and this administration are waving a white flag over our children, cutting their afterschool programs, No Child Left Behind. They have underfunded their own program by $13 billion.

They are waving a white flag of surrender over our seniors, causing them anxiety and threatening their Social Security.

They are waving a white flag over fiscal responsibility, by creating a debt that is more than $8 trillion. That means that approximately $92 billion is leaving this country every year to pay off the interest on the debt that foreign countries own.

And they are waving a white flag over our homeland security. The administration says all the right things about the terror threat. But they shortchange homeland defense.

It has been 4 years since 9/11. We are getting failing grades. We need $555 million this year to better secure our ports, $14 billion so that our first responders can communicate with one another. It is a disgrace that firefighters cannot talk to police officers and health care providers in our communities. Oh, no, oh, we couldn't ask the people who make over $1 million a year to help us.

And we are waving the white flag--we are--this Congress and this administration.

Fourth, and finally, we need to change course in Iraq. The President presents a false choice between leaving immediately and staying indefinitely. He says: Stay the course, stay the course. The course has to be changed. Frankly, the President, in every speech, connects this war in Iraq to 9/11, even though the 9/11 Commission said there was no connection and the President's own documents show there is no connection. As a matter of fact, it was a diversion from our fight against al-Qaida and bin Laden.

Do you know what? We are not any safer. Worldwide terrorism is up and increased by more than 1,200 terror attacks last year.

Even the President's own Director of Central Intelligence, Porter Goss, says:

Those jihadists who survive will leave Iraq experienced in

and focused on acts of urban terrorism.

Now, I agree with the President about importing democracy. But as Robert Pape of the University of Chicago has written:

. . . spreading democracy at the barrel of a gun in the

Persian Gulf is not likely to lead to a lasting solution

against suicide terrorism.

Last week's election in Iraq was an important step forward. And I pray that country will put together the kind of coalition that is necessary. But either way, it is time for the Iraqis to control their own destiny. Each election they have had, it seems to me, should be a step in our recognizing their right to run their own country. Their running their own country is a sign of success, not failure. Our long- term presence is viewed as open-ended, and it is fueling the insurgency.

Too many Iraqis believe that the United States has no intention to leave Iraq and with good reason. Every time the President is asked for benchmarks, he says we will be there as long as it takes, even though general Casey made it clear to me, when I was in Iraq, again, that our long-term presence is counterproductive.

And two-thirds of Iraqis oppose the presence of U.S. troops, at least two-thirds. In some polls, it is 80 percent. They do not want us there. They want to run their own country. That is not failure. That is not a white flag. That is not defeat. That is success, when we can redeploy our troops, so if the government there needs us, we are nearby.

We must accelerate the training of the Iraqi troops. I am glad the President admitted it has gone far too slowly. But enough with the excuses. They have to get out there and defend themselves. And we need to take the help that is being offered from around the world, around the region. The Egyptian Ambassador lamented the fact that so few troops have been trained in his country. He has offered to help, and we have not taken it.

Mr. President, in conclusion, it does not matter if you voted for the war or against the war at this point. We need now to take action. None of us can remain silent.

As a Senator, I feel obligated to tell the people of my State how I feel. It is time for a new policy. It is time for a new strategy that makes us safer and more secure. It is time to put to rest the notion that to speak out for a new strategy in Iraq is unpatriotic. It is time to realize that turning Iraq over to the Iraqis is what they expect and what we should do. That is what success is. It is time for a real strategy to stop the spread of terrorism and prevent the proliferation of WMDs, not go forward with preemptive wars that isolate America.

It is time for a real strategy to stop the spread of terrorism. It is time to remember that a strong America begins at home and that we can't have real security if we abandon our children and our families, our fiscal responsibility, or if we cannot prepare for a terrorist strike or an emergency such as Katrina. It is time for America to once again be a shining example for the rest of the world. We can do it.

Again, let's be honest about the past and restore our credibility. Let's honor our military with a clear plan. Let's get our priorities straight. Let's get Iraq right by working in a bipartisan way, not running ugly 30-second commercials while our soldiers die and get wounded. We can do better. We must do better. With the wisdom of the American people, we will do better.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I rise to pay tribute to 31 young Americans who have been killed in Iraq since November 10. This brings to 508 the number of soldiers who were either from California or based in California who have been killed while serving our country in Iraq. This represents 24 percent of all U.S. deaths in Iraq.

LCpl Jeremy P. Tamburello, 19, died November 8 from wounds sustained from an improvised explosive device while conducting combat operations west of Rutbah. He was assigned to the 1st Light Armor Reconnaissance Battalion, 1st Marine Division, Camp Pendleton, CA.

LCpl David A. Mendez Ruiz, 20 died November 12 from an improvised explosive device while conducting combat operations against enemy forces in Al Amiriyah. He was assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, Twentynine Palms, CA. During Operation Iraqi Freedom, his unit was attached to the 2nd Marine Division.

LCpl Scott A. Zubowski, 20, died November 12 from an improvised explosive device while conducting combat operations against enemy forces in Al Amiriyah. He was assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, Twentynine Palms, CA. During Operation Iraqi Freedom, his unit was attached to the 2nd Marine Division.

Cpl John M. Longoria, 21, died November 14 of wounds sustained from small arms fire while conducting combat operations against enemy forces during Operation Steel Curtain in New Ubaydi. He was assigned to Battalion Landing Team 2nd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, 13th Marine Expeditionary Unit, Camp Pendleton, California. During Operation Iraqi Freedom, his unit was attached to the 2nd Marine Division.

MAJ Ramon J. Mendoza, Jr., 37, died November 14 from an improvised explosive device while conducting combat operations against enemy forces during Operation Steel Curtain in New Ubaydi. He was assigned to Battalion Landing Team 2nd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, 13th Marine Expeditionary Unit, Camp Pendleton, CA. During Operation Iraqi Freedom, his unit was attached to the 2nd Marine Division.

LCpl Christopher M. McCrackin, 20, died November 14 from an improvised explosive device while conducting combat operations against enemy forces during Operation Steel Curtain in New Ubaydi. He was assigned to Battalion Landing Team 2nd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, 13th Marine Expeditionary Unit, Camp Pendleton, CA. During Operation Iraqi Freedom, his unit was attached to the 2nd Marine Division.

SPC Matthew J. Holley, 21, died November 15 of injuries sustained when an improvised explosive device detonated near his HMMWV during combat operations in Taji. He was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 320th Field Artillery Regiment, 101st Airborne Division, Fort Campbell, Kentucky. He was from San Diego, CA.

2nd LT Donald R. McGlothlin, 26, died November 16 from small arms fire while conducting combat operations against enemy forces during Operation Steel Curtain in Ubaydi. He was assigned to Battalion Landing Team 2nd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, 13th Marine Expeditionary Unit, Camp Pendleton, CA. During Operation Iraqi Freedom, his unit was attached to the 2nd Marine Division.

LCpl Roger W. Deeds, 24, died November 16 as a result of enemy small arms fire while conducting combat operations against enemy forces during Operation Steel Curtain in Ubaydi. He was assigned to Battalion Landing Team 2nd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, 13th Marine Expeditionary Unit, Camp Pendleton, CA. During Operation Iraqi Freedom, his unit was attached to the 2nd Marine Division.

LCpl John A. Lucente, 19, died November 16 from wounds sustained from an enemy hand grenade while conducting combat operations during Operation Steel Curtain in Ubaydi. He was assigned to Battalion Landing Team 2nd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, 13th Marine Expeditionary Unit, Camp Pendleton, CA. During Operation Iraqi Freedom, his unit was attached to the 2nd Marine Division. He was from Grass Valley, CA.

Cpl Jeffry A. Rogers, 21, died November 16 as a result of enemy small arms fire while conducting combat operations against enemy forces during Operation Steel Curtain in Ubaydi. He

was assigned to Battalion Landing Team 2nd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, 13th Marine Expeditionary Unit, Camp Pendleton, CA. During Operation Iraq Freedom, his unit was attached to 2nd Marine Division.

Cpl Joshua J. Ware, 20, died November 16 as a result of enemy small arms fire while conducting combat operations against enemy forces during Operation Steel Curtain in Ubaydi. He was assigned to Battalion Landing Team 2nd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, 13th Marine Expeditionary Unit, Camp Pendleton, CA. During Operation Iraqi Freedom, his unit was attached to 2nd Marine Division.

Sgt Jeremy E. Murray, 27, died November 16 from an improvised explosive device while conducting combat operations against enemy forces in the vicinity of Hadithah. He was assigned to 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, Camp Pendleton, CA. During Operation Iraqi Freedom, his unit was attached to the 2nd Marine Division.

SPC Vernon R. Widner, 34, died November 17 in Tikrit of injuries sustained the same day in Bayji when his HMMWV was involved in a vehicle accident during convoy operations. He was assigned to the 3rd Special Troops Battalion, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne Division, Fort Campbell, KY. He was from Redlands, CA.

LCpl Miguel Terrazas, 20, died November 19 from an improvised explosive device while conducting combat operations against enemy forces in the vicinity of Hadithah. He was assigned to 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, Camp Pendleton, CA. During Operation Iraqi Freedom, his unit was attached to the 2nd Marine Division.

SPC Michael J. Idanan, 21, died November 19 in Bayji when an improvised explosive device detonated near his HMMWV during combat operations. He was assigned to the 1st Squadron, 33rd Cavalry, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne Division, Fort Campbell, KY. He was from Chula Vista, CA.

SPC Javier A. Villanueva, 25, died November 24 in Al Asad of injuries sustained on November 23 in Hit when an improvised explosive device detonated near his dismounted patrol during combat operations. He was assigned to the Army's 2nd Squadron, 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment, Fort Irwin, CA.

MSgt Brett E. Angus, 40, died November 26 from an improvised explosive device while conducting combat operations against enemy forces in the vicinity of Camp Taqaddum. He was assigned to Marine Wing Support Squadron-372, Marine Wing Support Group-37, 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing, Camp Pendleton, CA. During Operation Iraqi Freedom, his unit was attached to the 2nd Marine Aircraft Wing.

SSgt William D. Richardson, 30, died November 30 of wounds sustained from a non-hostile vehicle accident near Al Taqaddum. He was assigned to Marine Wing Support Squadron-372, Marine Wing Support Group-37, 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing, Camp Pendleton, CA. During Operation Iraqi Freedom, his unit was attached to 2nd Marine Aircraft Wing.

SSgt. Daniel J. Clay, 27, died December 1 when an improvised explosive device detonated at a patrol base outside Fallujah. He was assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, Twentynine Palms, CA. During Operation Iraqi Freedom, his unit was attached to the 2nd Marine Division.

LCpl John M. Holmason, 20, died December 1 when an improvised explosive device detonated at a patrol base outside Fallujah. He was assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, Twentynine Palms, CA. During Operation Iraqi Freedom, his unit was attached to the 2nd Marine Division.

LCpl David A. Huhn, 24, died December 1 when an improvised explosive device detonated at a patrol base outside Fallujah. He was assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, Twentynine Palms, CA. During Operation Iraqi Freedom, his unit was attached to the 2nd Marine Division.

LCpl Adam W. Kaiser, 19, died December 1 when an improvised explosive device detonated at a patrol base outside Fallujah. He was assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, Twentynine Palms, CA. During Operation Iraqi Freedom, his unit was attached to the 2nd Marine Division.

LCpl Robert A. Martinez, 20, died December 1 when an improvised explosive device detonated at a patrol base outside Fallujah. He was assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, Twentynine Palms, CA. During Operation Iraqi Freedom, his unit was attached to the 2nd Marine Division.

Cpl Anthony T. McElveen, 20, died December 1 when an improvised explosive device detonated at a patrol base outside Fallujah. He was assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, Twentynine Palms, CA. During Operation Iraqi Freedom, his unit was attached to the 2nd Marine Division.

LCpl Scott T. Modeen, 24, died December 1 when an improvised explosive device detonated at a patrol base outside Fallujah. He was assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, Twentynine Palms, CA. During Operation Iraqi Freedom, his unit was attached to the 2nd Marine Division.

LCpl Andrew G. Patten, 19, died December 1 when an improvised explosive device detonated at a patrol base outside Fallujah. He was assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, Twentynine Palms, CA. During Operation Iraqi Freedom, his unit was attached to the 2nd Marine Division.

Sgt Andy A. Stevens, 29, died December 1 when an improvised explosive device detonated at a patrol base outside Fallujah. He was assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, Twentynine Palms, CA. During Operation Iraqi Freedom his unit was attached to the 2nd Marine Division.

LCpl Craig N. Watson, 21, died December 1 when an improvised explosive device detonated at a patrol base outside Fallujah. He was assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, Twentynine Palms, CA. During Operation Iraqi Freedom, his unit was attached to the 2nd Marine Division.

Cpl Joseph P. Bier, 22, died December 7 from an improvised explosive device while conducting combat operations against enemy forces in Ar Ramadi. He was assigned to 3rd Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, Twentynine Palms, CA. During Operation Iraqi Freedom, his unit was attached to the 2nd Marine Division.

Sgt Adrian N. Orosco, 26, died December 9 in Baghdad when a vehicle- borne improvised explosive device detonated near his dismounted position during combat operations. He was assigned to the 1st Squadron, 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment, Fort Irwin, CA. He was from Corcoran,

Mr. President, today, I am releasing the hold I placed on the nomination of Susan Bodine for Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid

Waste and Emergency Response based on the written commitment I have received from EPA to provide information and documents I have requested in connection with oversight of the Superfund program. I originally requested information on the Superfund program immediately after the Ms. Bodine's confirmation hearing in July.

To date, Ms. Bodine and EPA have provided only a partial response to my request. I want to be clear that every question I posed to Ms. Bodine and all the information I requested from EPA on this important public health program should have been provided to me without restriction as part of the Congressional oversight process. I ask unanimous consent that the original questions posed to Ms. Bodine be printed in the Record. EPA has now committed to provide additional information by January 31, 2006. And I ask that EPA's letter in this regard be printed in the Record.

There being no objections, the material was ordered to be printed in

Mr. President, while a complete response to my request remains outstanding, I have determined that with the additional commitments I received today, the confirmation of Ms. Bodine can proceed with the expectation and assurance from Ms. Bodine to work closely with me and provide cooperation on the oversight of this program.

In addition, the Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Inhofe, has agreed that the Superfund program and its critical missions are overdue for a comprehensive oversight hearing and that such a hearing shall be held in the Superfund and Waste Management Subcommittee of which I am ranking member. Senator Thune, the chairman of the subcommittee, has also agreed to this request.

There have been no comprehensive oversight hearings of this important public health program in over 3 years. Ms. Bodine has agreed to testify at this hearing after her confirmation, and we will have other outside witnesses as well. We have also requested that Administrator Stephen Johnson be available as well. I want to thank my colleague, Senator Inhofe for agreeing to this critical hearing.

Mr. President, I strongly oppose the fiscal year 2006 Labor-HHS appropriations conference report because it undermines many of our Nation's highest priorities and jeopardizes our most vulnerable citizens and communities.

We have all heard the dire warnings about the avian flu pandemic. We know that we need to invest adequate resources to develop vaccines, stockpile medicines, and better prepare at the local, State, and Federal levels. That is why the Senate passed Senator Harkin's amendment. Yet this conference report left out those vital funds and, in doing so, left us far less equipped to deal with a pandemic.

We know we must invest in the critical research that uncovers the secrets behind our greatest killers, saving the health and lives of our citizens. Yet this bill increases funding for the National Institutes of Health, NIH, by less than one percent, the smallest increase since 1970. Make no mistake: this will lead to cuts in the number of new research grants funded by NIH.

We know we have to invest in the education of our children at every level of schooling. We know our school districts, and our children, are being asked to meet tougher standards. Yet this conference report cuts education for the first time in a decade. No Child Left Behind, NCLB, programs have been cut 3 percent, now leaving them $13 billion below the authorized level. Fewer children will be served by afterschool programs, which keep our children safe after school and improve their academic performance. At a time when the costs of college are skyrocketing, this bill once again freezes Pell grants, which help low- income students afford a college education.

Now, this bill doesn't just cut critical funds; it also adds provisions that endanger our neediest citizens. None is more troubling to me than the Weldon amendment. I am extremely disappointed that the conference report rejected the real conscience clause in the Senate bill and instead included the House bill's sweeping and dangerous refusal clause.

Unlike the Senate language authored by Senator Specter and Senator Harkin, the provision in this conference report is not a conscience clause. It never mentions religion or morals. It forces States to choose between losing billions of dollars in funding or enforcing Federal and State laws ensuring reproductive health information and services for women. And it could have devastating consequences, including further endangering women in emergency situations, allowing doctors to be gagged, hurting victims of rape and incest, and seriously undermining state sovereignty.

Mr. President, if we want to really meet the great challenges we face in our country, we must reject this bill. The American people deserve better and we, as Senators, can certainly do better.

Mr. President, Today I rise to honor and share with my colleagues the memory of a remarkable man, Officer David Marin Romero of the California Highway Patrol. Officer David Marin Romero spent 23 years with the California Highway Patrol, providing the citizens of California with safety and service. On September 23, 2005, while on motor patrol in the city of Industry, Officer Romero was struck and killed by a driver suspected to be under the influence of a controlled substance.

The California Highway Patrol was Officer Romero's passion. He began his career with the California Highway Patrol at the Riverside Station near his home, and a year later he transferred to the Sante Fe Springs Station, near his childhood community. Romero served the remainder of his career in Santa Fe Springs, giving back to his community. He loved riding his motorcycle and combined this with his passion for law enforcement to become a very successful motorcycle officer. Officer Romero's colleagues shall always remember his infectious grin, practical jokes, and commitment to his job.

Officer Romero was a devoted family man. He is survived by his wife Sandra and children, Austin, Windsor, David, Victor, and Vanessa. When he was not on duty, Officer Romero enjoyed spending time with his family, riding dirt bikes, and coaching his children's sports teams. Officer David Marin Romero served the State of California honorably and conscientiously, and fulfilled his oath as an officer of the law. Officer Romero gave his life while assisting those in peril or distress. His character, integrity, loyalty, and dedication to law enforcement are greatly appreciated and will never be forgotten.

Officer David Marin Romero sacrificed his life doing what he loved to do--providing protection for the community in which he was raised. We shall always be grateful for Officer Romero's heroic service and the sacrifices he made while protecting the community he loved.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise to honor the memory of the late Nick Bronzan, a tireless champion for young people and seniors in central California. Mr. Bronzan, a long-time Fresno resident, passed away in the peaceful company of his family and loved ones on December 4, 2005. He was 90 years old.

Nick Bronzan, the son of Yugoslavian immigrants, was a true son of California's Central Valley. He was born in Stockton and spent his formative years in Manteca. A gifted athlete, Nick excelled as a football player at Fresno State College. Admired by his coaches and teammates for his great leadership qualities, Nick served as the captain of the 1939 championship team.

Upon graduation, Nick taught mathematics and coached a number of sports at Kerman High School for 5 years. Nick and his wife Peggy were beloved for all they did in both school and community activities. He would further his passion for helping young people by working for the YMCA in Fresno, Tulare, and Culver City. In 1961, Nick became the general secretary of the Fresno YMCA, and 7 years later, he was appointed as the executive director of the Central Valley YMCA. Throughout his professional career, Nick demonstrated an unyielding commitment to positively impact the lives of young people.

In his retirement, Nick generously lent his leadership and passion for community service to a number of very worthy and empowering causes. As director of the Fresno Foster Grandparents Program, he spearheaded a volunteer program for seniors to work with children lacking parents and families. Nick also began a house-sharing organization to increase and enhance older companionship. A powerful and determined advocate for the senior community, Nick successfully convinced businesses to hire senior watchmen to work late shifts. In 1984, he was appointed by then- California Assembly Speaker Willie L. Brown, Jr., to the California Commission on Aging and Long-Term Care. Whereas some see their golden years as a time to fade into the background in public life, Nick embraced it as an opportunity to continue to lead, to motivate others, and to make good things happen.

Nick Bronzan devoted 70 of his 90 years to community service. Nick selflessly gave his boundless energy, genuine compassion, and precious humanity to uplifting and empowering those who are most often neglected in our society: the young and the old. Nick has left behind a legacy of service and the admiration of those whose lives he touched over the years. He will be dearly missed.

Nick is survived by his wife Peggy; two daughters, Mary Bronzan and Ann McDonald; son, Bruce; five grandchildren and seven great- grandchildren. On December 11, more than 200 members of his family and friends gathered in Fresno to honor a rich life, well lived.