Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to recognize the 50th anniversary of Las Trampas, a nonprofit organization dedicated to supporting adults with developmental disabilities located in Contra Costa County. Founded in 1958 in Lafayette, CA, Las Trampas has grown to include four State-licensed group residential homes throughout Contra Costa County. Through the work of its staff, volunteers, and board of directors, Las Trampas actively assists adults with developmental disabilities to discover their capabilities so that they may live their lives as independently as possible. Las Trampas is committed to helping each of its clients succeed in all aspects of daily living. It offers programs that emphasize a life-long educational process, including self-advocacy skills, risk evaluation, emotion management, and clear communication skills. Two programs of note include the Adult Vocational Program and the Adult Development Program. The Adult Vocational Program provides employment services and skills development, and has helped many Las Trampas clients gain employment with local businesses. The Adult Development Program caters to small groups and highlights educational development in the areas of daily living tasks, communications, social interaction, and employment. Most importantly, Las Trampas works with every person to help them practice each of these skills in real life situations. The support services and programs provided by Las Trampas offer those with developmental disabilities the opportunity to turn the dream of full inclusion in the community into a reality. I commend the Las Trampas staff and volunteers for their dedicated work in assisting adults with developmental disabilities lead fuller lives in their home, at work, and in the community. I congratulate Las Trampas for its dedicated work on this special occasion, and I send my best wishes for many future successes over the next 50 years.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Chaffey College as it celebrates its 125th anniversary. Throughout the past 125 years, the students, faculty, staff, and community have worked diligently to make Chaffey College a hallmark institution of higher learning in southern California. In March 1883, brothers and engineers George and William Chaffey donated land and established an endowment for a private college to provide quality education to the citrus growing communities between the cities of Los Angeles and San Bernardino. The Chaffey brothers envisioned access to higher education throughout southern California for a burgeoning population, which would soon be realized by the dynamic growth of the college. The private school was initially founded as the Chaffey College of Agriculture as part of the University of Southern California. A short time later the college had an enrollment of 100 students and began to receive joint funding through the local school district, allowing a period of dramatic growth to begin. Since that time, Chaffey College has continued in its legacy of expansion, and it has taken great strides to provide increased opportunities for higher education throughout the region. It has developed satellite campus facilities in Ontario, Fontana and Chino. The education center in Chino is the only community college facility in California that is dedicated solely to information technology. And in May 2007, Chaffey College was able to dedicate six new buildings, including four science and technology buildings, the Don Berz Excellence Building, and the Kane Center for Student Services and Administration. Today, Chaffey College offers a wide variety of both academic and vocational education courses to over 18,000 students, helping an entire region of students throughout multiple communities find a competitive edge in the global marketplace. As Chaffey College celebrates 125 years of growth and development in serving the communities of southern California, I am pleased to ask my colleagues to recognize its accomplishments. The success of our Nation and of future generations of Americans will be ensured by the continuing dedication and commitment of educational institutions such as Chaffey College.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to recognize the 100th anniversary of the YWCA of San Diego County. On Tuesday, March 11, 2008, YWCA of San Diego County and community members will gather to celebrate this momentous occasion. The YWCA is the largest and oldest multicultural women's organization in the world. The YWCA was formed in 1855 in London by Emma Robarts and Mrs. Arthur Kinnaird. The YWCA later expanded to the United States in 1858 in New York and Boston. Today it serves as the largest organization dedicated to empowering women and provide an important voice for women at local, state, and international levels. YWCA of San Diego County is one of 300 local associations in the United States. YWCA of San Diego County was formally incorporated in 1908. For the past 100 years, YWCA has been a champion in the community on behalf of women and families who escape homelessness and domestic violence. The mission of YWCA ``is to increase safety, promote healing, foster empowerment, and give hope to women and families through innovative programs'' and services. The dedication of the YWCA to its mission is displayed through the programs and services that the YWCA provides. These programs and services include residential programs like transitional housing and emergency shelter, legal support, career assistance, counseling, and a telephone hotline. All of these programs are designed to support the needs of women and families coping with domestic violence and homelessness. Through a variety of programs such as Becky's House emergency shelter the YWCA of San Diego County is able to offer confidential, transitional housing for victims of domestic violence and their children. Various services like, legal assistance and counseling is provided to the residents of the emergency shelter. After the residents complete a 30 day stay at the shelter they are given the opportunity to complete an 18-month residential program at Becky's House. This program provides legal assistance, educational and career counseling, case management, and educational and play activities for the children of the women in the program. More than 70 percent of the 2,000 individuals the YWCA of San Diego County serve each year are able to obtain employment and permanent housing, so that the individual can sustain a secure, independent way of life. YWCA of San Diego County has set a wonderful example of philanthropy, civic service, and altruism for the community at large. Organizations such as the YWCA should be recognized for the critical role they play in strengthening women and families in California and the United States of America. I salute the men and women of YWCA for their continuous commitment to the betterment of women and families in crisis and efforts to enrich the broader San Diego community. I congratulate the YWCA of San Diego County on the celebration of its 100th anniversary. I wish them continued success.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise to speak about an amendment to this bill that would ban certain uses of a chemical that poses serious health risks to the lungs of consumers and workers. In recent years, scientific evidence has mounted that this chemical, called diacetyl, seriously harms the lungs of workers in the factories making microwave popcorn. It causes an awful disease called ``popcorn lung'' in which the tissue inside of the lungs gets clogged with scar tissue and inflammation, leaving the victims struggling to breathe. There is now evidence that it also may pose risks to consumers. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or CDC, the effects of popcorn lung include: Popcorn Lung (Bronchiolitis Obliterans) The main respiratory symptoms experienced by workers affected by bronchiolitis obliterans include cough (usually without phlegm), wheezing, and worsening shortness of breath on exertion. The severity of the lung symptoms can range from only a mild cough to severe cough and shortness of breath on exertion. These symptoms typically do not improve when the worker goes home at the end of the workday or on weekends or vacations. Usually these symptoms are gradual in onset and progressive, but severe symptoms can occur suddenly. Some workers may experience fever, night sweats, and weight loss. Before arriving at a final diagnosis, doctors of affected workers initially thought that the symptoms might be due to asthma, chronic bronchitis, emphysema, pneumonia, or smoking. Last year, Dr. Cecile Rose, the head of environmental and occupational health sciences at National Jewish Medical and Research Center, one of the most respected lung disease hospitals in the country, wrote to the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Food and Drug Administration, EPA, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration regarding the possible risk of popcorn lung for heavy consumers of microwave popcorn as well as for workers. Dr. Rose informed the agencies that she had a patient ``with significant lung disease whose clinical findings are similar to those described in affected [popcorn lung] workers, but whose only inhalational exposure is as a heavy, daily consumer of butter flavored microwave popcorn.'' Dr. Rose concluded that while we ``cannot be sure'' that heavy inhalation exposure to butter-flavored microwave popcorn caused the patient's popcorn lung, ``we have no other plausible explanation.'' This report by Dr. Rose, a leading lung disease expert, caused a stir in the health community and the public because previously the concern had been focused primarily on the workers, not consumers. Many of the major manufacturers of microwave popcorn have responded. According to published accounts, four of the leading makers and sellers of microwave popcorn--Con Agra, General Mills, American Pop Corn Company, and Pop Weaver--have said they will stop using diacetyl in their microwave popcorn. Their brands include Jolly Time, Orville Redenbacher, Pop Secret, Act II, and Pop Weaver. However, there is no enforceable requirement that these or other popcorn makers stop using this chemical in their butter flavoring. My amendment would simply level the playing field for all microwave popcorn makers, including importers and small manufacturers, by banning the intentional addition of diacetyl to microwave popcorn. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, in order to protect Americans from this unnecessary risk. We should be able to regularly enjoy the simple pleasure of watching movies at home and eating a bag of popcorn without having to worry about whether we are harming our lungs. I ask unanimous consent to have a letter in support of this amendment printed in the Record. March 5, 2008. Hon. Barbara Boxer, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Boxer: The undersigned consumer organizations write in support of your amendment to the Consumer Product Safety Commission Reform Act bill, S. 2663, to ban the use of the butter-flavoring chemical diacetyl in the production of microwave popcorn. Our groups believe that both workers and consumers should be protected from harmful and even deadly exposure to diacetyl, a chemical found in thousands of food products containing added flavorings, including microwave butter- flavored popcorn. Exposure to airborne diacetyl has been linked to the disease bronchiolitis obliterans, also known as ``popcorn lung.'' Problems with diacetyl first surfaced in 2000. Eight years later workers have become ill and died from exposure to this chemical. Last fall, the first case of a consumer contracting ``popcorn lung'' surfaced. This man developed lung disease after making microwave popcorn multiple times every day for a number of years. Further testing indicated that levels of airborne diacetyl in his home were comparable to levels found in microwave popcorn facilities where workers were diagnosed with ``popcorn lung.'' Diacetyl clearly poses a serious health hazard and must be banned. We understand that several leading manufacturers of microwave popcorn have voluntarily pledged to discontinue the use of diacetyl in their popcorn production. While we are supportive of these actions, it is essential that Congress act more formally to ensure that the comprehensive elimination of the use of this chemical happens immediately. Your amendment would accomplish this by making the ban on diacetyl in all microwave popcorn mandatory for all manufacturers. Thank you for your support for this important amendment. Sincerely, Sally Greenberg, Executive Director, National Consumers League. Edmund Mierzwinski, Consumer Program Director, U.S. Public Interest Research Group. Rachel Weintraub, Director of Product Safety and Senior Counsel, Consumer Federation of America. Ellen Bloom, Director, Federal Policy, Consumers Union. Ami Gadhia, Policy Counsel, Consumers Union.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, over 20 years ago, the people of California enacted a landmark ballot measure known as proposition 65. Proposition 65 prohibits exposures to chemicals like lead that are known to cause cancer or reproductive harm without a clear and reasonable warning. Proposition 65 enforcement actions by the State and by private attorney generals have played a crucial role in reducing childhood exposure to harmful chemicals, such as lead. For example, the California attorney general recently brought a proposition 65 case arising from unsafe levels of lead in children's toys. It is my understanding that nothing in this bill is intended to preempt or otherwise diminish the protections of proposition 65. I would like to ask the distinguished Senator from Arkansas and lead author of this legislation: is my understanding correct?

Mrs. BOXER. Is it the intent of this bill or the rules promulgated there under by the Consumer Product Safety Commission to preempt proposition 65?

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, if I can engage the Senator from Arkansas for a minute to clarify. I do have this amendment that is germane that deals with a chemical that has shown up in microwave popcorn and has proved to be fairly deadly to workers; in one case at least that we know about, in consumers. I understand we are having a vote in 5 minutes. Would it be amenable if I spoke about this amendment? I believe it is at the desk. The amendment is at the desk. If I could speak about it until it is time to vote. Would that be something you would encourage?

Mrs. BOXER. Thank you.

Mrs. BOXER. I have the time.

Mrs. BOXER. I am confused. Can someone explain that--I had the time. I was recognized by the Chair--as to why I do not have the time?

Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent that I have 2 minutes before Senator Cornyn to explain this amendment.

Mrs. BOXER. I would add 2 minutes, if that is okay, and then I am done.

Mrs. BOXER. Of course that was my intent, Mr. President. I mean no disrespect in any way. Amendment No. 4127 I wanted an opportunity to talk about an amendment that I have at the desk. It is germane. It would ban certain uses of a chemical that poses very serious health risks to the lungs of consumers and workers. In recent years, scientific evidence has mounted that a chemical called diacetyl seriously harms the lungs of workers in factories making microwave popcorn. I am sure you have read about it, because there is a huge list of stories that appeared in the press about doctors linking illnesses to this particular chemical. Also there is documentation that says that the large popcorn manufacturers have banned this chemical. But we do not have a ban in law, which means it is simply not fair. We have some companies that have banned it, but we have not acted to ban it. I think it is so dangerous. It causes the tissue inside the lungs to get clogged and creates scar tissue and inflammation and it leaves the victim struggling to breathe. That is the reason Senator Kennedy has teamed up with me on this amendment. The severity of the lung symptoms can range from only a mild cough to a severe cough, shortness of breath. These symptoms do not improve when the worker goes home at the end of the day, and severe symptoms can occur suddenly. The worker may experience fever, night sweats, and weight loss. Doctors were very puzzled, but they finally found a link with this chemical. I am not going to go on. I have a lot more to say on this. I hope it will not be necessary for us to have an argument about this, since the large companies have already banned it. It seems to me only right that we follow their lead and do so in law. My amendment simply levels the playing field for all microwave popcorn makers, including importers and small manufacturers, by banning this chemical, diacetyl. I urge my colleagues at the appropriate moment to please support this. I will say to the Senator from Arkansas, Mr. Pryor, if it is possible, I hope this will not be controversial. Perhaps it could be part of the managers' package. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I only need to speak for less than 10 minutes, if I may, because I have been sitting here for a very long time.

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I thank my friend and colleague. I will be brief because the message I have is a pretty straightforward message; that is, it is time for a change in Iraq. It has been a long time coming. We have been there 5 years, longer than we were in World War II, and it is time for a change in Iraq. It is time for a good change. What does that mean? It means that it is time for the Iraqis to stand up and fight for themselves. We know the violence there continues. We know that 15 percent of that violence is being perpetrated by foreign fighters, al-Qaida, and the rest--85 percent--is Iraqi-on-Iraqi ethnic violence. If the Iraqis are not ready to stop hurting each other and blowing each other up, if they are not ready to give that up, then we need to be ready to start pulling our troops out. It is pretty clear to me after 5 years that all our presence is doing at this point is acting as a recruiting tool for al-Qaida. Because we have this open-ended commitment--some on the other side are talking about 50 to 100 years--there really is not anything on our side to exert that leverage on the Iraqis. They are not fulfilling the benchmarks in the Government that this administration said they had to do. Here we have a situation where we have now lost 3,972 fighters on our side. Twenty-one percent of those were either born in California or were based in California. 29,275 Americans have been wounded, some of them grievously wounded, many more have traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress. The suicide rate is off the charts. There is no way out. There is no plan. There never has been a plan. It seems to me this open-ended commitment has to stop, and the Feingold bill essentially says we are going to have a very responsible withdrawal. There is no end date, but we are going to start it within 120 days of enactment of the bill, and we are going to shift the mission so that it continues training Iraqis. By the way, I don't know if I mentioned this, the taxpayers of our country have paid to train 440,000 Iraqis. We are spending $10 billion a month. That leads me to my final point of why I wanted this time this afternoon. We have to start looking at what this is costing us. I say it is time for America. We are shortchanging our children. We need to provide health insurance to many of our children. To provide health insurance to 10 million uninsured children for 5 years would cost us what it costs for 5\1/2\ months in Iraq. To enroll all eligible 3- to 4-year- olds in Head Start for 1 year would cost us 3 months in Iraq. To enroll 2.5 million kids in afterschool programs--and, boy, do I have a feeling for that one because I worked with Senator Ensign to set up the first afterschool program, and it has been shorted. For 7 days in Iraq, we can enroll 2.5 million kids in afterschool programs for 1 year. What else can I tell you about the funding? We are shortchanging America's workers. We can immediately replace structurally deficient bridges in the United States and create more than 3 million good-paying jobs for 6\1/2\ months of the cost in Iraq. Don't you think our workers deserve it? I do. We could extend 13 additional weeks of unemployment insurance to the chronically unemployed workers in high-unemployment States. One month in Iraq. We could help an additional 1 million families keep their heat on this winter through the LIHEAP program. One day in Iraq, Madam President. My colleagues come here and they have no end in sight for Iraq. Open checkbook for Iraq. Iraq in the morning, Iraq in the afternoon, Iraq at night, Iraq for 20 years, 50 years, maybe 100 years, as one Senator said. We can't afford it anymore. OK, let's look at what else we could do. For those people like myself who care about homeland defense, for 6 weeks in Iraq we could ensure full interoperability of all our communication systems. Our firemen could talk to our policemen, who could talk to our sheriffs, who could talk to our hospitals, who could talk to our Red Cross. Six weeks in Iraq. We could provide first responders with 3 million communications devices for 1 month in Iraq. We could provide firefighters with 12 million breathing devices for 1 month in Iraq. Finally, if you care about America's environment, as I do, and many of the people I represent do, we could extend renewable energy production tax credits for 4 years. We could do those tax cuts for investments in renewables for 3 weeks in Iraq. For less than 3 days we could erase the Superfund backlog. And for less than 1 day we could triple the Energy bill authorization to train green-collar workers. The American people have got to connect the dots here. We can't take care of our own. We can't take care of our kids. We can't do what we have to do for our workers. We can't do what we have to do for our businesses. We can't do what we have to do for our environment. And the reason is, our priority right now in this government, because of this administration and their friends in Congress, is Iraq in the morning, Iraq at 10 o'clock in the morning, Iraq at noon, Iraq at 5, Iraq at night, and we ignore the needs of our people. There is a time and a place to say to a country that is independent, after all we have done for it: Enough is enough. We trained 440,000. We put our American lives on the line. Our brave soldiers have done everything asked of them and more. They allowed three elections to be held. They got Saddam Hussein, they got Saddam's family, and they found there were no weapons of mass destruction. They did everything we asked them to do. And the Iraqi Government takes tiny little steps, baby steps forward, while we continue having our soldiers die and get wounded and our taxpayers have an open checkbook. My people come and say to me: Why can't we do more for our kids? Why can't we do more to protect our environment? Why can't we do more for our workers and our businesses? Why can't we do more to protect our people by investing in homeland security? I am now telling them the truth: Because the money is floating out of here straight to Iraq. And by the way, a lot of it is not accounted for--$9 billion missing in cash that was sent. The administration shrugs its shoulders: Oh, well, we don't know much about it. Scandals in contracting, embassies that are larger than the U.N. complex. Some of the Iraqi people call it GW's palace. I was in Saddam's palace, and I will tell you something. That was not a happy feeling because that is not something that we want to replicate, huge buildings like that, fancy. How much does it cost? Almost $800 million. It was supposed to cost $592 million. It doesn't matter, it is in Iraq. Open the checkbook and write the checks, says the President, the Vice President, and their friends in Congress, who are coming here and saying: No, no, no, every time we want to finally begin to bring this war to a close. Well, I have to tell you, I am ready for change, my constituents are ready for a change, and right now the Feingold legislation is responsible because it says we will keep troops there to protect our forces. We will slowly start bringing them home. We will redeploy them and have all the money we need to responsibly do that. And we will go after al-Qaida. I voted to go to war against Osama bin Laden. What happened to Osama bin Laden dead or alive? Oh, no, this administration turned around, went into Iraq, and as a result, we are not safe. Al-Qaida has reconstituted itself, and we are shortchanging the American people. I thank Senator Brownback for allowing me to go first, and I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am proud to rise in support of Senator Feingold's two bills. The first bill requires that the President begin the safe redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq within 120 days. There is no end date for redeployment. It only starts the redeployment. It includes exceptions for missions against al-Qaida, force protection, and training. The second bill requires that the administration provide to Congress a full report outlining a comprehensive global strategy to defeat al-Qaida and its affiliates. As someone who voted to go get bin Laden after 9/11, I am dismayed that this President has turned away from that mission and put so much into an ill-fated war in Iraq. Senator Feingold is proposing a policy for us that is consistent with common sense and our national security because the war in Iraq has not made us safer. It has made us vulnerable. The war in Iraq has not reduced the influence of al-Qaida. Actually, it has made al-Qaida a hero, unfortunately. It has been seen as one of the best recruiting tools of al-Qaida. I want to get al- Qaida, and that is what Senator Feingold's bills will result in because we will refocus our attention on capturing bin Laden and getting al- Qaida. We are in a quagmire in Iraq. We are told that quagmire will go on indefinitely. I believe it is undermining our national security. It is undermining our economic security. When I tell you what it is costing, it is a stunning number. It has diverted critical resources from the hunt for Osama bin Laden. He has been at large more than 6 years. And despite the administration's rhetoric, our own intelligence agencies again are telling us that the war in Iraq is proving to be a critical recruitment and fundraising tool for the terrorists we want to beat. We see a toll on our military. We hear phrases such as a ``death spiral.'' The Washington Post reported that Army and Marine officials refer to the readiness death spiral that senior officers warn puts our Nation at risk. Why? Because we lack the strategic reserve of ground forces to be able to respond to crises throughout the world. This single-minded focus on Iraq and the ever-changing mission there is not making us stronger. It is making us weaker. We now see that suicide attempts among U.S. troops have reached a record high, a sixfold increase since 2002. And while promising junior officers are leaving the military at record rates, we hear that the services are lowering their standards to meet recruitment goals. They are recruiting convicted felons now, people convicted of sex crimes, people convicted of making a false terror threat, assault with a deadly weapon. We are taking felons into the military. This is wrong for our Nation. Once upon a time we were told that this Iraq war was about weapons of mass destruction that Saddam Hussein was hiding, and it was about also Saddam's ties to al-Qaida. Our military did its job. They found out there weren't weapons of mass destruction, and our intelligence people did their job. They said there were no al-Qaida cells in Iraq at the time of 9/11. Then we were told the war was about getting rid of Saddam and liberating Iraq from that brutal tyrant. Our military did that. Then we were told the war was about holding elections and promoting democracy. You remember President Bush in his flight suit with big words ``mission accomplished.'' Well, there were many missions accomplished. There were no weapons of mass destruction. There were no ties to al-Qaida. We got Saddam Hussein. We got his relatives. Three elections were held. Our military did every single thing that was asked of them to the point where the President said ``mission accomplished.'' But, no, the troops are there. They are suffering. Believe me, there is no end in sight because I personally asked our Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice how long she, at the time, thought we would be in Iraq. She said she couldn't answer. I said: How much do you think we will have to spend? She couldn't answer. What kind of administration comes forward with a war and has no way out? Russ Feingold is saying: All right. We won't set an end date. We will change the mission to get our troops out of harm's way. Let them continue to train Iraqis. Let them go after al-Qaida. Let them protect our forces there and our personnel there. But get them out of the business of kicking down doors in Iraq. We have lost so many of these brave men and women, and so many are coming home who will never be the same. We have this war based on shifting missions. The President said: Mission accomplished. Dick Cheney said we are in the last throes. But it goes on and on under shifting rationales, going on 5 long years. Will it be another 5 years? They will not tell us. Will it be another 10 years? They will not tell us. Some of this administration's supporters say it will be 50 years. Some say it will be 100 years. How many brave men and women will die in addition to those who have already died? How many will be wounded? There are no answers. Will we spend $1 trillion? Will we spend $2 trillion, $3 trillion? No answer. The toll is too high already. Thousands dead, tens of thousands injured, $10 billion a month for Iraq. The Nation's Governors met with the President yesterday. On a bipartisan basis they asked to see increased spending on America's crumbling roads and highways and bridges. They said it would help our struggling economy, and we can't grow economically if we don't have an infrastructure. I am chair of the Public Works Committee of the Senate. My friend, Senator Inhofe, and I do not agree on the war in Iraq, but we certainly agree that we need to have an infrastructure. The President said: No, there is no money. There is only money for Iraq, an open checkbook, $10 billion a month. We can't fix our falling bridges. The $10 billion a month is equivalent to $2.5 billion a week, $357 million a day. For less than the cost of 3 months in Iraq, we could enroll every eligible child in America in the Head Start program for 1 long year. For the cost of 1 month in Iraq, we could provide afterschool care for our kids for 4 years. For the cost of 2 weeks in Iraq, we could provide health insurance for a year to 6 million uninsured kids. Last year we asked the President to help us with children's health. He said no. He vetoed that critical investment. He just said no to the Governors on rebuilding the roads and highways. Open checkbook for Iraq; closed checkbook for America. Do you remember when the President's then-Budget Director, Mitch Daniels, told us the war in Iraq would cost no more than $60 billion? He was wrong. Paul Wolfowitz assured us Iraqi revenue would pay for the war. No, we remember there were a couple in the administration who said the war might cost as much as $200 billion. They were ridiculed. The President's most recent supplemental request for Iraq was $200 billion in itself, bigger than the stimulus package we just passed. The President has spent more than a half trillion dollars on his failed policy, and there is literally no end in sight. I think we need to remember this is all borrowed money. The cost of interest on Iraq- related debt is $23 billion a year for fiscal year 2008 alone. The President's policy is being paid for on a credit card, and we are sticking my grandchildren and yours with the tab. The cost of a barrel of oil has tripled since the war began, much to the benefit of countries such as Russia, Sudan, and Iran. According to the Joint Economic Committee, if you factor in the cost of the oil, the President's policy in Iraq has already cost the average family $416,500, and no end in sight. It needs to stop. We are hemorrhaging money. The waste in this war is beyond disgraceful. We spent $32 million for a base in Iraq that was never built. We paid a contractor $72 million to build a barracks for the police academy in Baghdad and instead got a building with giant cracks snaking through newly built walls and human waste dripping from the ceiling. That is from a report. The administration loaded $9 billion in cash on to pallets and shipped it into Iraq where it promptly disappeared. I ask you: Imagine what would happen if $9 billion disappeared from one of our cities. The people responsible would be in prison. But in Iraq, the President shrugs it off. When the President vetoed the Water Resources Development Act, he said it lacked fiscal discipline. He said it wasn't fiscally responsible. I would ask rhetorically: Not fiscally responsible to maintain our waterways and keep our commerce moving in this, the greatest Nation in the world? This, coming from a President who inherited a budget surplus and turned it into a huge debt, with the largest budget deficits in history as well, and money for Iraq every day, every hour, every minute, no end in sight, billions missing, billions on bases that were never built. It is breathtaking. The President and his supporters shrug it off. They don't even address it. It is unbelievable. The sky is the limit. But when it comes to investing in America or extending the stimulus for seniors and disabled vets, we are told: Sorry, we need to show fiscal discipline. Thank goodness we were able to get that through above the President's objections. Our own military leaders tell us time and time again there is no military solution. God bless our soldiers. They have given us a breathing space. Yet the Iraqi Government is just making changes around the edges. We have trained 440,000 Iraqis militarily. Imagine, 440,000 Iraqis. Why can't they defend themselves? Countries defend themselves. We have given so much in blood, in tears, in sweat, in dollars, in commitment, in trust. After the elections last year, I thought the President would come to the table when the Democrats took over and said we wanted to end the war. We thought he would come to the table. We were wrong. He did not come to the table. He is continuing this war, no end in sight, no plan to get out. When I asked that question to Condoleezza Rice, I was stunned. She said: I can't answer the question of how long we will be there. I can't answer the question of what it will cost--as if I didn't have a right to ask the question. That is why I am sent here. I represent, along with Senator Feinstein, 37 million people. We have taken a hit on soldiers killed. We have taken a hit on soldiers burned. We have taken a hit on soldiers permanently disabled. So you better know I am going to ask these questions. Today, Senator Feingold is saying: Let's get started. Let's start telling the Iraqis, by our actions not just our words, that they have to step up to the plate. We have to make a choice as a nation. Is it time for America? It is time for our families, for our soldiers, for our children, for our grandchildren? Or is it time to continue this open-ended commitment to a war without an end, a war that has no plan of ever ending, a war that is tying our hands in this recession? I say it is time for a change in America. It is time to vote for the Feingold bill and start bringing our troops home. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to observe the 100th anniversary of the U.S. Army Reserve and to recognize its installations in California that comprise the U.S. Army Combat Support Training Center, CSTC. Initially established by Congress in 1908 to provide a reserve force of medical officers, today's Army Reserve is a vital operational component in the world's most powerful and sophisticated Army. The Army Reserve provides the specialized skills and manpower the Army depends on and currently assists the Army in locations worldwide, including Iraq, Afghanistan, the Horn of Africa, the Philippines, and Latin America. As a result of their extensive peacetime and wartime accomplishments over the last 100 years, the men and women who have served and continue to volunteer to serve in the U.S. Army Reserve deserve the greatest respect and admiration. Established in June 2005, CSTC is the Army's newest training center and the first of its kind to serve as a premier training center for Army Reserve soldiers in the Western United States. CSTC provides ranges, training areas, and facilities to prepare and train Army Reserve soldiers and encompasses four geographically separated installations throughout northern and central California: Moffett Field in the city of Mountain View, B.T. Collins Army Reserve Center in the city of Sacramento, Camp Parks in the city of Dublin, and Fort Hunter Liggett in southern Monterey County. Until 1993, Camp Parks and Fort Hunter Liggett were separate installations under the control of the U.S. Army Reserve Command, USARC. However, in 1995, USARC placed these two posts under Fort McCoy, WI, which in turn developed the original CSTC concept. With headquarters at Camp Parks, which oversees the base operations, training facilities, and housing assets of Fort Hunter Liggett and Camp Parks, the CSTC also provides military housing at Moffett Field and lodging and dining facilities at the B.T. Collins Army Reserve Center. I commend the CSTC for its success in providing the training grounds, facilities, and support to Army Reserve soldiers. The world-class support and training reservists receive at CSTC is worthy of the utmost praise. I commend the U.S. Army Reserve for 100 years of stellar service to our State and Nation. I will continue to support the Army Reserve as a vital component of America's national defense.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, the city of Los Angeles and the nationwide law enforcement community has lost an exemplary leader. Officer Randal Simmons, a 27-year veteran of the Los Angeles Police Department and 20-year member of the department's elite Special Weapons and Tactics Team, SWAT, is the first officer in the team's four-decade history to die in the line of duty. I would like to take a few moments to recognize Officer Randal Simmons' many important accomplishments and the tremendous impact he made as a leader in both his personal and professional life. Originally from New York City, Simmons' family moved to southern California early in his life. He graduated from Fairfax High School in 1974 and then attended Washington State University where he studied criminology and was a member of the University's football team. After college, Simmons returned to the city of Los Angeles and became a member of the Los Angeles Police Department. During his career, Simmons served in many high-crime areas where he worked to not only protect the local community but also to combat gang activity. His dedication to serving the residents of Los Angeles was well recognized when he earned the distinction of becoming a member of the department's elite SWAT Team. Simmons was not only a leader to his fellow officers but also a highly respected leader in his community. Serving as an ordained minister, he was an active member of his church and helped to build a community gymnasium. He volunteered much of his time to lead a group ministry that served nearly 1,500 children and also found time to serve as coach for his son's football team. His presence in the community will truly be missed. I invite all of my colleagues to join me in recognizing and honoring Officer Randal Simmons for his guidance and leadership in fighting to improve the lives of all Angelinos. He is survived by his wife Lisa and their two children, to whom I send my heartfelt condolence. Officer Simmons leaves a lasting legacy of caring and compassion that serves as a model to us all.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to recognize the 100th anniversary of the city of Larkspur, located in Marin County, CA. The city of Larkspur was incorporated into the State of California on March 1, 1908. This year, we celebrate its centennial anniversary. With a downtown that is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, the architecture that defines the city of Larkspur has fascinated and charmed visitors for decades. Its historical structures and natural surroundings provide residents and visitors alike a glimpse of California the way it was at the start of the 20th century. The city is divided into two distinct areas, with its historic downtown area to the west of Highway 101 and Larkspur Landing, an outdoor shopping area with sublime bay views, to the east of Highway 101. Just across the street from Larkspur Landing, travelers can catch the Larkspur Ferry to the San Francisco Ferry Building, a ride that offers spectacular views of Mount Tamalpais, Angel Island, and the Golden Gate Bridge. This outstanding natural scenery in the midst of such a finely preserved historical setting makes the slogan ``Meet me in Larkspur'' a common phrase amongst residents and visitors alike. From the preservation of historic Magnolia Avenue to the conservation of the celebrated Blue Rock Inn, the city of Larkspur offers visitors a vibrant look at smalltown California as it was in the early 1900s. For 100 years, the city of Larkspur has not only served as a recreational escape and historical wonderland for those visiting the city but a place to call home for its more than 11,000 residents. I commend the city of Larkspur for maintaining the natural beauty and historical significance that defines this fine city. The city of Larkspur's vision and commitment to protecting its small piece of California history should be commended. I congratulate the city of Larkspur for its hard work on this special occasion, and I look forward to future generations having the opportunity to visit and enjoy this unique city.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield, through the Chair, for a question?

Mrs. BOXER. Thank you. In order to try to get my schedule and Senator Byrd's schedule--I know Senator Byrd wishes to speak for about 20 minutes. I wish to ask unanimous consent if I could follow him because there was an amendment that involved California. I was not able to be here, and I wish to answer that. If I could follow Senator Byrd.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, can I have an answer to my question?

Mrs. BOXER. Thank you.

Mrs. BOXER. If I might, yes.

Mrs. BOXER. I think if I have 15 minutes that would be fine.