Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, March 14, 2007, at 9:30 a.m., for a hearing titled ``The Threat of Islamic Radicalism to the Homeland.''

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Open Government: Reinvigorating the Freedom of Information Act'' on Wednesday, March 14, 2007, at 10 a.m., in Dirksen Senate Office Building room 226. Witness List Tom Curley, President and CEO of the Associated Press, Representing the Sunshine in Government Initiative, New York, NY; Meredith Fuchs, General Counsel, The National Security Archive, Washington, DC; Sabina Haskell, Editor, Brattleboro Reformer, Brattleboro, VT; and Katherine Cary, General Counsel, Texas Office of the Attorney General, Austin, TX.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules and Administration be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 14, 2007, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on S. 223, The Senate Campaign Disclosure Parity Act.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I am pleased that in this new Congress, we are able to take up and pass a bill that implements the 9/11 Commission recommendations. Even though aviation security has improved greatly in the last 5 years, there are still holes in the system--as we discovered last summer with the aviation terrorist plot uncovered by the British authorities. Therefore, implementing these recommendations is crucial.

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, one hole in aviation security is the cargo that is carried on passenger planes. The bill does strengthen security for cargo on passenger planes. First, the bill requires screening of all of the cargo going on passenger aircraft. Second, the bill requires the Transportation Security Administration to implement a program--either random or risked-based--to place blast-resistant containers on passenger planes. However, the program does not implement the 9/11 Commission recommendation to require one blast-resistant cargo container on every plane. The 9/11 Commission recommended, ``TSA should require that every passenger aircraft carrying cargo deploy at least one hardened container to carry any suspect cargo.'' Therefore, all passenger planes should have at least one blast-resistant container for cargo.

Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Senator for his support. We owe this to the American people. We cannot allow terrorists to exploit holes in our aviation security system. oversight

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the memory of the late Ernest Gallo, a true American success story who came from a humble beginning to head the world's largest winemaking company. Mr. Gallo passed away in the peaceful company of his family and loved ones at his home in Modesto, California on March 6, 2007. He was 97 years old. The first son of Joseph and Susie Gallo, immigrants who hailed from Italy's renowned winemaking region of Piedmont, Ernest Gallo was born in Jackson, in the Sierra Nevada foothills region of California. Ernest and his younger brothers, Julio and Joe, gained important insight into the winemaking business by working alongside their father in the family vineyard. As a precocious and driven 17-year-old boy, Ernest sold a railcar full of family grapes during a trip to Chicago for $17,000, a considerable sum of money during those days. From that point forward, it was apparent that Ernest was a gifted and determined entrepreneur who was destined for great success in the winemaking business. After his parents unexpectedly passed away, Ernest accepted the mantle of the head of the business and the family at the age of 24 and founded E. and J. Gallo Winery in 1933 using a $5,000 loan from Ernest's mother-in-law and his brother Julio's entire savings of less than $1,000. Throughout his stewardship of the winery that would become one of the world's most prolific and recognized winemaking companies, Ernest consistently demonstrated an unparalleled ability to produce affordable, popular, and high quality products. A wine connoisseur in the truest sense of the word, Ernest was a perfectionist who left his imprint on nearly every aspect of the winemaking process; from overseeing production, to devising brilliant marketing plans, to regularly traveling across the country to make sure that wine displays were properly presented in markets. Simply put, Ernest was a consummate winemaker who was absolutely dedicated to honing and perfecting his craft. Ernest Gallo has left behind a legacy of success and the well- deserved recognition as one of the leading figures of American winemaking. This son of California's Central Valley will be greatly missed. Ernest Gallo was preceded in death by his beloved wife of 62 years, Amelia, and son, David. He is survived by his son, Joseph, and four grandchildren.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am sorry the Republican leader was unable to agree to the proposal put forward by Senator Reid on behalf of the Democratic majority of the Senate. It seems to me my friends on the other side of the aisle cannot accept yes for an answer. They have wanted for a long time to have a vote on the Gregg amendment. Senator Reid said, fine, we will vote on the Gregg amendment.

Mrs. BOXER. Yes, I am happy to.

Mrs. BOXER. Yes. I am glad the leader explained that. The fact is, with the approval of the other side, we could have taken up the Iraq issue on Monday, and we could all have been heard all of Monday, Tuesday, and then voted for the resolution that represented our ideas, our thoughts, on how to proceed in Iraq. The fact is, that proposal was objected to by the Republicans. What was that proposal? It was everything they wanted last week. They wanted a vote on the Gregg amendment. We said fine, you can do it. They wanted a vote on the Warner amendment. Senator Reid said you got it. They wanted a vote in favor of the surge with the McCain amendment. Senator Reid had that in his proposal. We Democrats are asking for a vote on our proposal, which I will talk about in a minute, and another proposal that would be similar to Senator Gregg's. Republicans would have gotten three of their amendments and proposals, and we would have gotten, on our side, two. But the Republicans cannot say yes. What this means is Senator Reid is right. We are not going to debate Iraq next week--at least not Monday. We will debate it in the context of the supplemental or, if we can reach agreement, in the context of a unanimous consent resolution. I am very proud to be a cosponsor of the Reid joint resolution. I want to talk about what it does. It says we support the troops. It says the circumstances cited in the 2002 use of force authorization have changed substantially. We all know that. It is not the same. We went in to find weapons of mass destruction. Then they changed the mission to capture Saddam Hussein. Then they changed the mission to make it safe for an election. Iraq has had three. Then they changed the mission to train the Iraqi troops, and they have now 300,000. But I have to say that to see our troops in the middle of a civil war is not what we should be supporting. The Iraq Study Group said that, and this resolution says U.S. troops should not be policing a civil war. The American people agree with that. Further, we say U.S. policy in Iraq must change to emphasize the need for a political solution. We all know there will never, ever be a solution, no matter how many troops are sent to Iraq, and whether they stay there a week, a month, a year, or 10 years, there will never be a solution until that solution is a political one, where the countries in the region come forward, where the various parties in Iraq who are warring come to the table and hammer out an agreement. Now, we know what happened when the President chose to go into Iraq. He turned his back. He turned his back on the war I voted for, the war against Osama bin Laden. He turned his back on the people of Afghanistan. Yes, we are there. But if we had done with half of the number of troops we had in Iraq now, and if we had used those in Afghanistan, and if we had spent maybe a third of the funding we spent in Iraq in Afghanistan, we would have a different scene in Afghanistan. We would be in a better place in Afghanistan. So, clearly, what happened with the Iraq war was it took our focus off the war on terror. We call for the President to properly transition the mission of U.S. forces and begin a phased redeployment no later than 120 days following enactment. So we will start bringing the troops home. We Democrats want to start bringing the troops home and, if they don't come home, redeploy them out of Iraq to other places. It is our goal to redeploy all combat forces from Iraq by March 31, 2008. I have to say, what I have heard from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, whenever we talk about a timeline, is it is terrible to set a timeline. I rhetorically ask, why? Don't we need to send a message to the Iraqis that we will not hold their hands forever, that they have to take care of their own country, that we cannot keep sending the treasure of our country in the form of our troops forever? We have lost too many. Too many are wounded. I met with paralyzed veterans today. I can tell you that from the look on their faces, they are desperate for help they are not getting. Why? Because we have so many wounded, this administration wasn't ready for the numbers. They never say that. They weren't ready. They weren't ready to support our troops. Now, we need a comprehensive strategy to ensure stability in Iraq. As I said, we need a mission our troops can accomplish. In our resolution, we call for three limited purposes: force protection, training and equipping Iraqi troops, and targeted counterterror operations. So we say, for the troops remaining, they will not be in the middle of a civil war, but they will protect our forces who are there, they will train and equip Iraqis and continue counterterror operations. We want to change course. We want to transition the mission and we want to bring civility to Iraq. Now, that is Senator Reid's proposal. I think the vast majority of Democrats are supporting it. More than 3,175 U.S. military men and women have been killed in the war in Iraq. More than 23,900 have been wounded. So it is not hard to understand why a majority of the American people now believe the war in Iraq was not worth fighting. The American people understand our military and their families are paying a very severe price for this never-ending war. They understand this administration's foreign policy decisions have not only made us less safe, but they have empowered dangerous leaders such as the one in Iran. It is time for us to begin the redeployment of our forces from Iraq, just as the Reid resolution recommends, so we can return our focus to the war on terror and fight that war from a position of strength. We cannot defeat al-Qaida while we are bogged down in the middle of a civil war. I do hope we can pass Senator Dorgan's resolution making a very strong point that Osama bin Laden attacked our country, and we want him captured. Our troops have performed brilliantly. They have done everything asked of them. They deserve the love and support of a grateful Nation. When you love the troops, you give them a mission they can accomplish. You don't give them mission impossible. You don't give them a mission that puts them in the middle of a civil war, and that is why the Democratic proposal is so important. As former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright recently told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, on which I serve: We have put our forces in the absurd position of trying to prevent violence by all sides against all sides. The Sunnis want us to protect them from the Shiites. The Shiites want us on the sidelines so that they can consolidate their power. Both are divided among themselves. . . . This is what she said to our committee. I was there when she said it: If I was a soldier on patrol in Baghdad, I wouldn't know whom to shoot at until I was shot at, which is untenable. An unclassified summary of the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq states: The intelligence community judges that the word ``civil war'' accurately describes key elements of the Iraqi conflict, including the hardening of ethno-sectarian identities, a sea change in the character of the violence, ethno-sectarian mobilization, and population displacements. That is our intelligence community. There is no military solution to the situation in Iraq. The only sustainable solution is a political and diplomatic one, as I said previously. Some warn us we must not redeploy our troops from Iraq and take them out of the middle of the civil war or else there will be a larger civil war. But I say we should heed the advice of Ed Luttwak, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategy and International Studies, who said: By interfering with the civil war [in Iraq], we are prolonging it. . . . Let me repeat that: By interfering with the civil war [in Iraq], we are prolonging it . . . we are intruding in matters we cannot manage successfully. And therefore, I believe, that disengagement is the right way to go. I wish to talk about something that gets Senators in trouble, and that is using the words ``love the troops.'' There is a lot of rhetoric about what it means to love the troops. I say when you love the troops, you give them gear and equipment they need, and you don't tell them to settle for less. We remember Secretary Rumsfeld who said, when asked by the troops about body armor: As you know, you have to go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you want. We will never forget that stinging rebuke to a soldier who was deeply fearful about the lack of armor, the lack of equipment. That arrogant statement shows why our service members were left scrounging for scrap metal for their vehicles and asking their families back home to send bandages and body armor. What was interesting about the last election is people said nothing will change, nothing will change if the Democrats win this election. The first thing that happened was Rumsfeld was gone in 5 minutes--in 5 minutes. So elections have consequences, and I believe now we have a Secretary of Defense who seems to me to be trying to grapple with the problems he is facing. He isn't arrogant, and he doesn't tell the troops to go get lost if they ask a tough question. The President is now increasing the number of troops in Iraq. Today I learned that in addition to the surge, he is adding another 2,000 troops. But we still know not all of them will have the best equipment. This is unacceptable, and loving our troops has to be more than a slogan. When you love your troops, you send them into battle adequately equipped. When you love the troops, you don't lower the standards for their future colleagues in arms. In order to meet recruiting goals, the Army has significantly lowered eligibility standards. The number of waivers granted to Army recruits with criminal backgrounds has grown about 65 percent in the last 3 years. Approximately 11 percent, or 894, of the 8,120 waivers granted in 2006 were for people with felony convictions. When you love the troops, do you want to put them next to someone who has been convicted of a felony? Our military men and women must trust their fellow soldiers with their lives. We must ensure that our military meets the highest standards. I compliment Congressman Murtha, who is known in this country as a war hero, who has been there, who has done that, who has seen things none of us would ever want to see. He says we can't keep sending our troops back into the field, into combat, without adequate preparation, training, and the highest standards--and rest. I say that when you love the troops, you don't send them to moldy hospital rooms to recuperate. You don't do it. Recent press reports have revealed that soldiers are languishing in substandard facilities at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. I thank my colleagues in the Congress for investigating this matter because some of us believe it is the tip of the iceberg. I have asked my State staff to go on a tour of California hospitals and report back to me as to conditions in those hospitals. An investigation by the Washington Post found vermin, leaking pipes, and mold at Walter Reed Building 18, an old hotel used by outpatients receiving care at the main Walter Reed Hospital facility. The Post also highlighted larger and even more disturbing problems related to personnel management and recordkeeping. Soldiers complained of lost paperwork, of difficulty locating their appointments and of months--even as long as 2 years--spent trying to navigate a bureaucratic nightmare. According to the Post, some soldiers have simply given up trying to receive care and have gone home. I wish to point out to the Senate--because we all know there are deep differences about this war--I want people to know that although Senator Lieberman and I do not see eye to eye on this war--and he will say that and I will say that; we see it from a different point of view--we have teamed up to try and make sure our soldiers on the battlefield get the mental health help they must have. We are disturbed about some of the rules, about what we have found in our investigation with our staffs. And that is, many times doctors are overruled by the officers and a doctor will say: Do not send this individual out because they have post-traumatic stress and sometimes, unfortunately, we have learned the doctor doesn't hold sway, and the soldier is sent out with a pocketful of antidepressants, just as you would give someone aspirin for a headache. This isn't good enough for our soldiers. Senator Lieberman and I are now working with Senator Murray, Senator Inouye, Senator Levin, and Senator Akaka to try and make sure our soldiers get the care they need, whether it is physical injury or mental injury. I went to a hospital in San Francisco. I saw x-rays of brains that were damaged by explosions, and then I saw x-rays of brains of people who had post-traumatic stress. The doctors told me that in both cases, you see the damage. You can't tell one from the other. So when you love the troops, you don't send them back into combat with post-traumatic stress and a bottle of antidepressants. You don't do it. Tragically, we know this is happening. As part of the 2007 Defense authorization bill, my legislation passed requiring the DOD to issue guidelines as to the deployability of servicemembers with post-traumatic stress, but the DOD has not issued the guidelines and servicemembers with PTSD, post-traumatic stress disorder, continue to be deployed. When you love the troops, you don't reduce the number of permanent disability decisions to save money, when so many of these troops are, in fact, permanently disabled. Recent press reports in my hometown paper, the Desert Sun in California, have suggested that the Army is trying to save money by giving our troops less of a disability rating than they deserve, despite an enormous spike in the number of battlefield injuries resulting from service in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now, after nearly 4 years in Iraq, which was supposed to be a walk in the park, a mission easily accomplished, an enemy in the last throes, it is time to tell this President the time is up for his ever-changing mission. Our troops, whom we all love, deserve more than broken promises, broken bodies, and broken dreams. It is time that Congress, following the will of the voters, start redeploying the troops out of Iraq now, as Britain has done, as Japan has done, as Italy has done, as Hungary has done, as Spain has done, as Portugal has done, as Norway has done. It is time to say to the President that the authorization you received from this Congress has to come to an end, just like your coalition of the willing is coming to an end. The American people want this over. The Democratic resolution that Senator Reid tried to get before our body is reasonable. It is not a cut-and-run resolution. It is a resolution that says: Start redeploying the troops out of there, change the mission, as the Iraq Study Group suggested, take our troops out of the middle of a civil war, give them missions they can accomplish-- force protection, training and equipping Iraqi troops, targeted counterterrorism operations so we can continue that war against al- Qaida for which I voted. I didn't vote for this one. This one is a diversion from the war on terror, in my humble opinion. My people in California want their National Guard home protecting them in case of emergency. I met with my National Guard. They are short of equipment. In a State such as mine where we have earthquakes, fire, flood, drought--every kind of problem one can name--we want our National Guard home and ready. There are terror targets in my State. We do have those symbols of America that the terrorists would love to target. We want our troops back home. We are willing to say if you get them out of a civil war, if you want to keep them in the area to do a limited number of missions, that make sense, fine. It is time for diplomacy. It is time for a political solution. It is time for this Senate to take up Harry Reid's offer and allow us to vote on our resolution that starts redeploying the troops out of Iraq and bring up Senator Warner's resolution and bring up Senator Gregg's resolution and bring up Senator McCain's resolution--bring them all to the floor of the Senate. But don't block us from having this debate which we were ready to start on Monday. I hope my Republican friends will reconsider. This is not the first time they have blocked us from debate on Iraq. We respect their points of view. We honor their points of view. We encourage them to support the resolutions that they support. But don't block a debate. In closing, I compliment my friends, the managers of this 9/11 bill. This is such an important bill. It is so important. I restrained myself from offering amendments on this bill. I had something I wanted to do regarding blast-resistant cargo containers, but I didn't want to hold up getting this bill done. We can work on some of the fine points later. I hope colleagues on both sides will vote to bring debate to a close on this 9/11 bill. Both our colleagues have worked so hard on it, and the 9/11 Commission has warned us we have work to do. We are so happy to see this bill on the floor. So let's get it done as soon as possible, and then let's go to a debate on a cloud that is hanging over all our heads, regardless of how one feels about this war. Let's have that Senate debate, that respectful debate on how to achieve success and bring our troops home from Iraq. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am pleased to re-introduce legislation to name the Federal courthouse building at Tulare and ``O'' Streets in downtown Fresno, CA the ``Robert E. Coyle United States Courthouse.'' It is fitting that the Federal courthouse in Fresno be named for retired U.S. District Judge Robert E. Coyle, who is greatly respected and admired for his work as a judge and for his foresight and persistence that contributed so much to the Fresno Courthouse project. Judge Coyle has been a leader in the effort to build the courthouse in Fresno for more than a decade. Indeed, he personally supervised this project. He was often seen with his hard hat in hand, walking from his chambers to the new building to meet project staff. Judge Coyle, working with the Clerk of the United States District Court for the Eastern District, conceived and founded a program called ``Managing a Capitol Construction Program'' to help others understand the process of having a courthouse built. This Eastern District program was so well received by national court administrators that it is now a nationwide program run by Judge Coyle. In addition to meeting the needs of the court for additional space, the courthouse project has become a key element in the downtown revitalization of Fresno. Judge Coyle's efforts, and those in the community with whom he has worked, produced a major milestone when the building was occupied in January of 2006. Judge Coyle has had a distinguished career as an attorney and on the bench. Appointed to California's Eastern District bench by President Ronald Reagan in 1982, Judge Coyle has served as a judge for the Eastern District for 20 years, including 6 years as senior judge. Judge Coyle earned his law degree from the University of California, Hastings College of the Law in 1956. He then worked for Fresno County as a Deputy District Attorney before going into private practice in 1958 with McCormick, Barstow, Sheppard, Coyle & Wayte, where he remained until his appointment by President Reagan. Judge Coyle is very active in the community and has served in many judicial leadership positions, including: chair of the Space and Security Committee; chair of the Conference of the Chief District Judges of the Ninth Circuit; president of the Ninth Circuit District Judges Association; Member of the Board of Governors of the State Bar of California; and president of the Fresno County Bar. My hope is that, in addition to serving the people of the Eastern District as a courthouse, this building will stand as a reminder to the community and people of California of the dedicated work of Judge Robert E. Coyle.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am pleased to re-introduce legislation to name the Federal courthouse building at Tulare and ``O'' Streets in downtown Fresno, CA the ``Robert E. Coyle United States Courthouse.'' It is fitting that the Federal courthouse in Fresno be named for retired U.S. District Judge Robert E. Coyle, who is greatly respected and admired for his work as a judge and for his foresight and persistence that contributed so much to the Fresno Courthouse project. Judge Coyle has been a leader in the effort to build the courthouse in Fresno for more than a decade. Indeed, he personally supervised this project. He was often seen with his hard hat in hand, walking from his chambers to the new building to meet project staff. Judge Coyle, working with the Clerk of the United States District Court for the Eastern District, conceived and founded a program called ``Managing a Capitol Construction Program'' to help others understand the process of having a courthouse built. This Eastern District program was so well received by national court administrators that it is now a nationwide program run by Judge Coyle. In addition to meeting the needs of the court for additional space, the courthouse project has become a key element in the downtown revitalization of Fresno. Judge Coyle's efforts, and those in the community with whom he has worked, produced a major milestone when the building was occupied in January of 2006. Judge Coyle has had a distinguished career as an attorney and on the bench. Appointed to California's Eastern District bench by President Ronald Reagan in 1982, Judge Coyle has served as a judge for the Eastern District for 20 years, including 6 years as senior judge. Judge Coyle earned his law degree from the University of California, Hastings College of the Law in 1956. He then worked for Fresno County as a Deputy District Attorney before going into private practice in 1958 with McCormick, Barstow, Sheppard, Coyle & Wayte, where he remained until his appointment by President Reagan. Judge Coyle is very active in the community and has served in many judicial leadership positions, including: chair of the Space and Security Committee; chair of the Conference of the Chief District Judges of the Ninth Circuit; president of the Ninth Circuit District Judges Association; Member of the Board of Governors of the State Bar of California; and president of the Fresno County Bar. My hope is that, in addition to serving the people of the Eastern District as a courthouse, this building will stand as a reminder to the community and people of California of the dedicated work of Judge Robert E. Coyle.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the lifetime contributions of Dr. Lawrence Thomas Geraty as he retires as president of La Sierra University in southern California. Dr. Geraty's strengths as a churchman, educator, academic, and administrator provide an example for us all. Dr. Geraty has been a college and university president for the past 22 years, first taking on this role at Union College in South Lancaster, MA, in 1985. For the past 14 years he has served as president of La Sierra University in Riverside, CA. Growing up as a member of a Seventh-Day Adventist missionary family, Lawrence Geraty gained a broad perspective of the world, living abroad or attending educational institutions in China including Hong Kong, Burma, Lebanon, England, Germany, France, and Israel. He earned his bachelor's degree from Pacific Union College, then graduated from the Theological Seminary at Andrews University. Following his graduation, he served as a pastor in Santa Ana, CA, for a brief period of time. Thereafter, he joined Andrews Theological Seminary as a faculty member. After serving at Andrews, he went to Harvard University to study Hebrew Bible and Biblical archaeology, earning his Ph.D. with distinction and completing examinations in 10 languages. After receiving his Ph.D. Dr. Geraty returned to Andrews Theological Seminary to work as Professor of Archaeology and History of Antiquity. For the next 13 years, Dr. Geraty served as an educator and scholar in Jamaica, Jordan, Costa Rica, Trinidad, Europe, and Australia. During this period, he was a founding director of the Institute of Archaeology at Andrews University, led a series of major archaeological expeditions in the Middle East, and worked as the curator of the Horn Archaeological Museum. Dr. Geraty has had led a prominent career in academia. He was the recipient of a Fulbright fellowship. He served as an adviser on archaeology to former Crown Prince Hassan of Jordan. He served as vice president of the American Center of Oriental Research in Amman, Jordan from 1982 to 2002. He represented the U.S. Office of Education in a delegation of administrators to study minority education in China. He has published roughly 50 scholarly journal articles, edited 8 books and provided contributions to over 30 books. During his tenure as president of La Sierra University, the university has seen tremendous growth and has played an integral role in the growth of inland southern California and our Nation. Between 1993 and 2006 university enrollment nearly doubled. In 2002, a biotechnology laboratory opened. In 2004, U.S. News and World Report distinguished La Sierra University for its successes in student diversity. And this year, Dr. Geraty had the great distinction of being named ``Citizen of the Year'' by the Greater Riverside Chamber of Commerce. In his time as president of La Sierra University, Dr. Lawrence Geraty has provided our Nation with a role model of leadership and citizenship. His commitment continues to leave a legacy of service to academia, scholarship, education, his community and our Nation, and I applaud his lifetime of service as he retires.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, early one October morning in 1960, Senator John F. Kennedy stood on the steps of the University of Michigan Union and challenged a group of students to serve their country by living and working abroad. Today I rise to commemorate the service of 187,000 Americans, young and old, who have met that challenge. From Armenia to Zambia, Peace Corps volunteers have lived and worked in 139 countries around the world for the past 46 years. They act as ambassadors of our goodwill and promote a world of peace and friendship. Historically, more Peace Corps volunteers have come from California than any other State indeed, 25,467 Peace Corps volunteers have hailed from my State. Today, I am proud to represent 768 Peace Corps volunteers currently working abroad. In their work as teachers, business advisors, information technology consultants, agriculture and environmental specialists, and health educators; Peace Corps volunteers have not only met the needs of the individuals and communities who are their hosts, but also promoted a better understanding of Americans. After almost five decades, the mission and goals of the Peace Corps are as vital and relevant as they were the day of its establishment. In an age when fear, misunderstanding, and blind prejudice can breed aggression and hate, more than 20 percent of Peace Corps volunteers are working in predominantly Muslim countries. In the past 10 years, the Peace Corps has expanded to meet new humanitarian challenges, sending Returned Peace Corps Volunteers to serve in the Crisis Corps. These extraordinary men and women have been deployed to tsunami-ravaged regions in Sri Lanka and Thailand, to Guatemala after Hurricane Stan, and 272 Returned Peace Corps Volunteers joined in disaster relief efforts along the gulf coast following Hurricane Katrina. Finally, I would like to recognize the Returned Peace Corps Volunteers who have been participating in National Peace Corps Week. By sharing their experiences, these Returned Peace Corps Volunteers are fulfilling the third goal of the Peace Corps, to ``strengthen Americans' understanding about the world and its peoples.''

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, in accordance with rule XXVI(2) of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I ask that the Rules of Procedure of the Select Committee on Ethics, which were adopted February 23, 1978, and revised November 1999, be printed in the Congressional Record for the 110th Congress. The committee rules for the 110th Congress are identical to the rules adopted by the committee for the 109th Congress.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague Senator Olympia Snowe to introduce ``The Airline Passenger Bill of Rights Act of 2007,'' a bill which addresses an issue recently in the news-- airlines trapping passengers on the ground in delayed planes for hours and hours without adequate food, water or bathrooms. This week, at John F. Kennedy International Airport, a JetBlue airplane sat on the tarmac for 11 hours. Over this New Year's Eve weekend, American Airlines had to divert planes to Austin because of the bad weather and one plane sat on the tarmac for nine hours. For the passengers, the conditions were not good. There was not enough food and potable water, and the bathrooms stopped working. According to news reports, after waiting for five hours an elderly woman asked for food and was told she could purchase a snack box for $4. This is unacceptable. I have been stuck on the tarmac many times in my travel back and forth to California. Weather delays are unavoidable, but airlines must have a plan to ensure that their passengers--which often include infants and the elderly--are not trapped on a plane for hours and hours. If a plane is stuck on the tarmac or at the gate for hours, a passenger should have the right to deplane. No one should be held hostage on an aircraft when an airline can clearly find a way to get passengers off safely. This is not the first time that passengers have been trapped on an airplane an extreme amount of time. In 1999, after a Northwest plane was delayed on the tarmac for at least nine hours with the same poor conditions, many Members of Congress were outraged and several introduced comprehensive passenger bill of rights legislation. While those bills did not become law, they had a powerful effect on the airlines, which agreed to a 12-point ``Airline Customer Service Plan.'' In the plan, the airlines committed to providing passengers with better information about ticket prices and delays, better efforts to retrieve lost luggage, fairer ``bumping'' policies and to meeting essential needs during long on-aircraft delays. And since 1999 the airlines have made improvements to passenger service. But in recent years, as the industry has grown ever more competitive, airlines are increasingly operating with no margin of error. Planes are completely sold out, gates are continuously utilized, airport facilities are stretched thin. This means that when bad weather hits, the airlines can find themselves unable to readily accommodate delays and cancellations. And the results, as we have seen this winter, can be disastrous. And that is why today we are introducing the ``Airline Passenger Bill of Rights Act of 2007,'' commonsense legislation designed to ensure that travelers can no longer be unnecessarily trapped on airplanes for excessive periods of time or deprived of food, water or adequate restrooms during a ground delay. The legislation requires airlines to offer passengers the option of safely leaving a plane they have boarded once that plane has sat on the ground three hours after the plane door has closed. This option would be provided every three hours that the plane continues to sit on the ground. The legislation also requires airlines to provide passengers with necessary services such as food, potable water and adequate restroom facilities while a plane is delayed on the ground. The legislation provides two exceptions to the three-hour option. The pilot may decide to not allow passengers to deplane if he or she reasonably believes their safety or security would be at risk due to extreme weather or other emergencies. Alternately, if the pilot reasonably determines that the flight will depart within 30 minutes after the three hour period, he or she can delay the deplaning option for an additional 30 minutes. I believe this legislation will do much to help consumers while placing reasonable requirements on the airlines and I hope my colleagues will support it.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague Senator Olympia Snowe to introduce ``The Airline Passenger Bill of Rights Act of 2007,'' a bill which addresses an issue recently in the news-- airlines trapping passengers on the ground in delayed planes for hours and hours without adequate food, water or bathrooms. This week, at John F. Kennedy International Airport, a JetBlue airplane sat on the tarmac for 11 hours. Over this New Year's Eve weekend, American Airlines had to divert planes to Austin because of the bad weather and one plane sat on the tarmac for nine hours. For the passengers, the conditions were not good. There was not enough food and potable water, and the bathrooms stopped working. According to news reports, after waiting for five hours an elderly woman asked for food and was told she could purchase a snack box for $4. This is unacceptable. I have been stuck on the tarmac many times in my travel back and forth to California. Weather delays are unavoidable, but airlines must have a plan to ensure that their passengers--which often include infants and the elderly--are not trapped on a plane for hours and hours. If a plane is stuck on the tarmac or at the gate for hours, a passenger should have the right to deplane. No one should be held hostage on an aircraft when an airline can clearly find a way to get passengers off safely. This is not the first time that passengers have been trapped on an airplane an extreme amount of time. In 1999, after a Northwest plane was delayed on the tarmac for at least nine hours with the same poor conditions, many Members of Congress were outraged and several introduced comprehensive passenger bill of rights legislation. While those bills did not become law, they had a powerful effect on the airlines, which agreed to a 12-point ``Airline Customer Service Plan.'' In the plan, the airlines committed to providing passengers with better information about ticket prices and delays, better efforts to retrieve lost luggage, fairer ``bumping'' policies and to meeting essential needs during long on-aircraft delays. And since 1999 the airlines have made improvements to passenger service. But in recent years, as the industry has grown ever more competitive, airlines are increasingly operating with no margin of error. Planes are completely sold out, gates are continuously utilized, airport facilities are stretched thin. This means that when bad weather hits, the airlines can find themselves unable to readily accommodate delays and cancellations. And the results, as we have seen this winter, can be disastrous. And that is why today we are introducing the ``Airline Passenger Bill of Rights Act of 2007,'' commonsense legislation designed to ensure that travelers can no longer be unnecessarily trapped on airplanes for excessive periods of time or deprived of food, water or adequate restrooms during a ground delay. The legislation requires airlines to offer passengers the option of safely leaving a plane they have boarded once that plane has sat on the ground three hours after the plane door has closed. This option would be provided every three hours that the plane continues to sit on the ground. The legislation also requires airlines to provide passengers with necessary services such as food, potable water and adequate restroom facilities while a plane is delayed on the ground. The legislation provides two exceptions to the three-hour option. The pilot may decide to not allow passengers to deplane if he or she reasonably believes their safety or security would be at risk due to extreme weather or other emergencies. Alternately, if the pilot reasonably determines that the flight will depart within 30 minutes after the three hour period, he or she can delay the deplaning option for an additional 30 minutes. I believe this legislation will do much to help consumers while placing reasonable requirements on the airlines and I hope my colleagues will support it.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I support the nomination of General George Casey to be Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army and disavow attempts to blame him for the failures in Iraq. The blame for the disastrous and reckless war in Iraq lies with the President, Vice President Dick Cheney, former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. The blame starts at the top. It is they who must be held accountable. General Casey did not author the misguided doctrine of preemptive war. General Casey did not manipulate and politicize intelligence to sell the Iraq war to the American people. And General Casey did not fail to provide a political solution to end the sectarian violence that is now engulfing Iraq. It is the civilian leadership of the Bush administration that continues to fail us in Iraq. When I traveled to Iraq and met with General Casey, he told me the truth. He said that the U.S. presence was fueling the insurgency. I appreciated his candor. He fully understood the dangers and challenges in Iraq. Unlike so many in the Bush administration, his view of the situation in Iraq was not distorted by rose-colored classes. General Casey did not lead us down this dangerous path in Iraq. Therefore I cast a ``yes'' vote.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Urban Area Security Initiative Improvement Act,'' which addresses eligibility for the Department of Homeland Security's Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) grant program. This bill will improve the existing grant award process by broadening the number of urban areas eligible to apply. In Fiscal Year 06, the Department of Homeland Security made arbitrary decisions about areas' need for homeland security funding, threatening the eligibility of eleven worthy areas to apply for future grants. The eligibility of Sacramento and San Diego, in my State of California, were threatened in this way. Sacramento is the capital of the most populous State in the Nation and home to dozens of critical Federal and State government buildings. In addition, much of the State's water, electricity, and telecommunication systems are managed from Sacramento. The San Diego area contains the Nation's seventh-largest city adjacent to a heavily trafficked international border, a busy port, tourist attractions, and major military installations. My bill would ensure that the 100 most populous urban areas of the country are eligible to apply for UASI grants each year. The Department of Homeland Security would then have the discretion to award funds to as many applicants as it deems worthy and needy. The bill would also require that the Department employ a ``sensitivity analysis'' in its grant process, to deal with uncertainty in the mathematical models that it uses to evaluate the risk of terrorism for urban areas. The Department's leadership could make better-informed policy decisions if it used a sensitivity analysis to better understand the effects of policy judgments in estimating risk each year. I urge my colleagues to consider and pass this bill, with its important implications for making our Nation more secure against terrorism.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Urban Area Security Initiative Improvement Act,'' which addresses eligibility for the Department of Homeland Security's Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) grant program. This bill will improve the existing grant award process by broadening the number of urban areas eligible to apply. In Fiscal Year 06, the Department of Homeland Security made arbitrary decisions about areas' need for homeland security funding, threatening the eligibility of eleven worthy areas to apply for future grants. The eligibility of Sacramento and San Diego, in my State of California, were threatened in this way. Sacramento is the capital of the most populous State in the Nation and home to dozens of critical Federal and State government buildings. In addition, much of the State's water, electricity, and telecommunication systems are managed from Sacramento. The San Diego area contains the Nation's seventh-largest city adjacent to a heavily trafficked international border, a busy port, tourist attractions, and major military installations. My bill would ensure that the 100 most populous urban areas of the country are eligible to apply for UASI grants each year. The Department of Homeland Security would then have the discretion to award funds to as many applicants as it deems worthy and needy. The bill would also require that the Department employ a ``sensitivity analysis'' in its grant process, to deal with uncertainty in the mathematical models that it uses to evaluate the risk of terrorism for urban areas. The Department's leadership could make better-informed policy decisions if it used a sensitivity analysis to better understand the effects of policy judgments in estimating risk each year. I urge my colleagues to consider and pass this bill, with its important implications for making our Nation more secure against terrorism.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that during the time controlled by the Democrats this afternoon, the following be recognized to speak for up to 10 minutes each, except where noted, and that each side alternate when appropriate: Boxer, Murray, Dodd, 15 minutes; Kerry, 15 minutes; Nelson of Florida, Reed, Harkin, and Whitehouse.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, today I rise to pay tribute to 37 young Americans who have been killed in Iraq since November 17, 2006. This brings to 677 the number of soldiers who were either from California or based in California that have been killed while serving our country in Iraq. This represents 22 percent of all U.S. deaths in Iraq. SFC Tung M. Nguyen, 38, died on November 14, in Baghdad, Iraq, of injuries sustained from small arms fire. Sergeant First Class Nguyen was assigned to B Company, 2nd Battalion, 3rd Special Forces Group, Fort Bragg, NC. He was from Tracy, CA. LCpl Jeromy D. West, 20, died November 25, while conducting combat operations in Al Anbar province, Iraq. Lance Corporal West was assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 3rd Marine Regiment, 3rd Marine Division, III Marine Expeditionary Force, Kaneohe Bay, HI. He was from Aguanga, CA. Cpl Dustin J. Libby, 22, died December 6, while conducting combat operations in Al Anbar province, Iraq. Corporal Libby was assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 4th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA. SPC Micah S. Gifford, 27, died of injuries suffered when an improvised explosive device detonated near his unit while on patrol during combat operations in Baghdad, Iraq, on December 7. Specialist Gifford was assigned to the 3rd Battalion, 509th Infantry Regiment, Airborne, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 25th Infantry Division, Fort Richardson, AK. He was from Redding, CA. MAJ Megan M. McClung, 34, died December 6, while supporting combat operations in Al Anbar province, Iraq. Major McClung was assigned to I Marine Expeditionary Force Headquarters Group, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA. SPC Nicholas P. Steinbacher, 22, died on December 10, in Baghdad, Iraq, when an improvised explosive device detonated near his military vehicle. Specialist Steinbacher was assigned to B Company, 2nd Battalion, 5th Cavalry Regiment, 1st Cavalry Division, Fort Hood, TX. He was from La Crescenta, CA. LCpl Clinton J. Miller, 23, died December 11, while conducting combat operations in Al Anbar province, Iraq. Lance Corporal Miller was assigned to Marine Wing Support Squadron 373, Marine Wing Support Group 37, 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Marine Corps Air Station, Miramar, CA. Cpl Matthew V. Dillon, 25, died December 11, while conducting combat operations in Al Anbar province, Iraq. Corporal Dillon was assigned to Marine Wing Support Squadron 373, Marine Wing Support Group 37, 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Marine Corps Air Station, Miramar, CA. LCpl Budd M. Cote, 21, died December 11, while conducting combat operations in Al Anbar province, Iraq. Lance Corporal Cote was assigned to Marine Wing Support Squadron 373, Marine Wing Support Group 37, 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Marine Corps Air Station, Miramar, CA. MSgt Brian P. McAnulty, 39, died December 11, when the CH-53 helicopter he was riding in crashed just after takeoff in Al Anbar province, Iraq. Master Sergeant McAnulty was assigned to the 3rd Battalion, 4th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Twentynine Palms, CA. CPT Kevin M. Kryst, 27, died December 18, from wounds received while conducting combat operations in Al Anbar province, Iraq. Captain Kryst was assigned to Marine Light-Attack Helicopter Squadron 267, Marine Aircraft Group 39, 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA. LCpl Nicklas J. Palmer, 19, died December 16, while conducting combat operations in Al Anbar province, Iraq. Lance Corporal Palmer was assigned to the 1st Combat Engineer Battalion, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA. LCpl Luke C. Yepsen, 20, died December 14, due to injuries suffered from enemy action in Al Anbar Province, Iraq. Lance Corporal Yepsen was assigned to the 1st Tank Battalion, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Twentynine Palms, CA. Cpl Joshua D. Pickard, 20, died December 19, while conducting combat operations in Al Anbar province, Iraq. Corporal Pickard was assigned to the 2nd Assault Amphibian Battalion, 2nd Marine Division, II Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Lejeune, NC. He was from Merced, CA. LCpl Ryan L. Mayhan, 25, died December 21, while conducting combat operations in Al Anbar province, Iraq. Lance Corporal Mayhan was assigned to the 3rd Battalion, 4th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Twentynine Palms, CA. He was from Hawthorne, CA. LCpl Ryan J. Burgess, 21, died December 21, while conducting combat operations in Al Anbar province, Iraq. Lance Corporal Burgess was assigned to the 3rd Battalion, 4th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Twentynine Palms, CA. Hospitalman Kyle A. Nolen, 21, died December 21, in Al Anbar Province, Iraq, as a result of enemy action. Hospitalman Nolen was assigned to H Company, 3rd Battalion, 4th Marine Division, Regimental Combat Team 7, I Marine Expeditionary Force Forward, Twentynine Palms, CA. LCpl Fernando S. Tamayo, 19, died December 21, while conducting combat operations in Al Anbar province, Iraq. Lance Corporal Tamayo was assigned to the 3rd Battalion, 4th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Twentynine Palms, CA. He was from Fontana, CA. SPC Elias Elias, 27, died December 23, in Baghdad, Iraq, of wounds suffered when an improvised explosive device detonated near his vehicle while on patrol. Specialist Elias was assigned to the 3rd Squadron, 61st Cavalry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division, Fort Carson, CO. He was from Glendora, CA. SPC Michael J. Crutchfield, 21, died December 23, in Balad, Iraq, of a non-combat related injury. Specialist Crutchfield was assigned to the 3rd Battalion, 4th Air Defense Artillery Regiment, Fort Bragg, NC. He was from Stockton, CA. SGT Lawrance J. Carter, 25, died December 29, in Baghdad, Iraq, of wounds sustained when an improvised explosive device detonated near his vehicle during combat operations. Sergeant Carter was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 18th Infantry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 1st Armored Division, Schweinfurt, Germany. He was from Rancho Cucamonga, CA. SPC Luis G. Ayala, 21, died December 28, in Taji, Iraq, of wounds suffered when an improvised explosive device detonated near his unit while on combat patrol. Specialist Ayala was assigned to the 2nd Squadron, 8th Cavalry Regiment, 1st Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division, Fort Hood, TX. He was from South Gate, CA. Sgt Aron C. Blum, 22, died December 28, at the Naval Medical Center in San Diego, California, of a nonhostile cause after being evacuated from Al Anbar province, Iraq, on December 8. Sergeant Blum was assigned to Marine Aerial Refueler Transport Squadron 352, Marine Aircraft Group 11, 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Marine Corps Air Station, Miramar, CA. PFC Ming Sun, 20, died January 9, in Ar Ramadi, Iraq, of wounds suffered when his unit came in contact with enemy forces using small arms fire during combat patrol operations. Private First Class Sun was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 9th Infantry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division, Fort Carson, CO. He was from Cathedral City, CA. 2LT Mark J. Daily, 23, died on January 15, in Mosul, Iraq, when an improvised explosive device detonated near his military vehicle. Lieutenant Daily was assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 7th Cavalry Regiment, 1st Cavalry Division, Fort Bliss, TX. He was from Irvine, CA. CAPT Brian S. Freeman, 31, died January 20, in Karbala, Iraq, of wounds suffered when his meeting area came under attack by mortar and small arms fire. Captain Freeman was assigned to the 412th Civil Affairs Battalion, Whitehall, OH. He was from Temecula, CA. SPC Jeffrey D. Bisson, 22, died January 20, in Karma, Iraq, of wounds sustained when an improvised explosive device detonated near his Humvee. Specialist Bisson was assigned to the 3rd Battalion, 509th Infantry, Airborne, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 25th Infantry Division, Fort Richardson, AK. He was from Vista, CA. LCpl Andrew G. Matus, 19, died January 21, from wounds received while conducting combat operations in Al Anbar province, Iraq. Lance Corporal Matus was assigned to Battalion Landing Team 2nd Battalion, 4th Marine Regiment, 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit, Special Operations Capable, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA. LCpl Emilian D. Sanchez, 20, died January 21, from wounds received while conducting combat operations in Al Anbar province, Iraq. Lance Corporal Sanchez was assigned to Battalion Landing Team 2nd Battalion, 4th Marine Regiment, 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit, Special Operations Capable, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA. SSG Jamie D. Wilson, 34, died January 22, in Fallujah, Iraq, from wounds suffered while conducting security operations in Karmah, Iraq. Staff Sergeant Wilson was assigned to the 3rd Battalion, 509th Infantry Regiment, Airborne, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 25th Infantry Division, Fort Richardson, AK. He was from San Diego, CA. PFC Michael C. Balsley, 23, died on January 25, in Baghdad, Iraq, when an improvised explosive device detonated near his military vehicle. Private First Class Balsley was assigned to the 3rd Squadron, 61st Cavalry Regiment, 2nd Infantry Division, Fort Carson, CO. He was from Hayward, CA. LCpl Anthony C. Melia, 20, died January 27, while conducting combat operations in Al Anbar province, Iraq. Lance Corporal Melia was assigned to Battalion Landing Team 2nd Battalion, 4th Marine Regiment, 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit, Special Operations Capable, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA. He was from Thousand Oaks, CA. SPC Carla J. Stewart, 37, died January 28, in Tallil, Iraq, of injuries suffered when her convoy vehicle rolled over. Specialist Stewart was assigned to the 250th Transportation Company, El Monte, CA. She was from Sun Valley, CA. CWO 3 Cornell C. Chao, 36, died on January 28, in Najaf, Iraq, of injuries sustained when his helicopter crashed. Chief Warrant Officer Three Chao was assigned to the 4th Battalion, 227th Aviation Regiment, 1st Cavalry Division, Fort Hood, TX. He was from Orange, CA. PFC David T. Toomalatai, 19, died on January 27, in Taji, Iraq, when an improvised explosive device detonated near his military vehicle. Private First Class Toomalatai was assigned to Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 2nd Battalion, 8th Cavalry Regiment, 1st Cavalry Division, Fort Hood, TX. He was from Long Beach, CA. LCpl Adam Q. Emul, 19, died January 29, from wounds received while conducting combat operations in Al Anbar province, Iraq. Lance Corporal Emul was assigned to 3rd Battalion, 4th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Twentynine Palms, CA. SGT William M. Sigua, 21, died on January 31, in Bayji, Iraq, when his dismounted patrol received small arms fire. Sergeant Sigua was assigned to C Company, 1st Battalion, 505th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 82nd Airborne Division, Fort Bragg, NC. He was from Los Altos, CA. I would also like to pay tribute to the soldier from California who has died while serving our country in Operation Enduring Freedom since November 17. SPC Jeffrey G. Roberson, 22, died on November 28 in Logar, Afghanistan, from injuries sustained when an improvised explosive device detonated near his patrol. Specialist Roberson was assigned to the 230th Military Police Company, Kaiserslautern, Germany. He was from Phelan, CA. iraq escalation When General William Sherman said ``war is hell,'' he certainly knew what he was talking about. After nearly 4 years in Iraq, I know of no one today who would argue with that statement. As Members of Congress, we have an awesome responsibility to decide whether to send America's sons and daughters into war. I voted against the resolution authorizing the President to go to war in Iraq because I didn't believe we should have been rushing to say to the President: Go it alone, you have a blank check. This is what I said at the time, October 10, 2002, which is just before this Senate voted to give the President authority to go to war: I never have seen a situation where the President of the United States asked for the ability to go to war alone and yet has not told the American people what that would mean. How many troops would be involved? How many casualties would there be? Would the U.S. have to foot the entire cost of using force against Iraq? If not, which nations are ready to provide financial support? Troop support? What will the cost be to rebuild Iraq? How long would our troops have to stay there? What if our troops become a target for terrorists? Obviously, I didn't know the answers to those questions that weighed on my heart that day, but today I know that there are more than 138,000 troops serving in Iraq, with a big escalation to come, an escalation that the Republicans would not allow us to vote on. I know that 3,098 soldiers have been killed and more than 23,000 have been wounded. I know we have spent $379 billion and that doesn't include the President's latest request. And I know, as we all do, that our troops are targets for terrorism and that 61 percent of Iraqis think it is OK to shoot an American soldier. How can this President send more of our troops into a country he says he is trying to help when 61 percent of the Iraqi people say it is OK to shoot and kill an American soldier, and 71 percent of Iraqis want us out of Iraq within a year? We now have answers to the questions I raised that bleak day--terrible answers. Yet my Republican colleagues wouldn't allow us to vote on a resolution opposing an escalation of this war, an escalation of over 40,000 troops, when you consider the support troops. We know that a majority of Senators oppose this escalation. We know the majority of the American people oppose this escalation. Yet we can't vote on it. Many of us have gone further. We have proposed resolutions and bills to start redeploying our troops out of Iraq. We have called on the Iraqis--a majority of us last year--to shoulder the burden of defending their own country. It seems like yesterday when we passed the 1,000 dead mark and then 1,500 dead mark and then the 2,000 dead mark and then the 2,500 dead mark. Now it is more than 3,000 dead. I remember when we hit the 2,500 dead mark last June. A reporter at the White House press briefing asked Mr. Bush's press secretary, Tony Snow, if the President had any reaction. Mr. Snow said: ``It's a number, and every time there's one of those 500 benchmarks, people want something.'' What does that even mean? He calls 500 American dead benchmarks? That was a low point even for this administration that keeps on saying, if you don't support the war, you don't support the troops. That is hogwash. How do you support the troops when you send them into the middle of a civil war where they don't even know who is shooting at them? How do you support the troops? Three thousand ninety-eight soldiers dead is not just a number; those are people. That is 3,098 families who are forever changed. To put more of them in harm's way, to escalate our involvement does not say to me we love them. It says to me we have not thought this through. We are not listening or this administration is not listening to the Iraq Study Group. It is not listening to the military generals who came before us to say this is wrong. It is not listening to the American people. Again and again this White House closes its eyes on the reality of this war. I know they don't want to see the tragic truth. But if you are going to make a decision to send our soldiers to war, you better be able to look at the consequences of that decision. They would not even let us vote on this escalation. The White House doesn't want that vote. They don't want to be second-guessed. They don't want to be embarrassed. They don't want to hear what this Democratic Congress has to say. And guess what. Elections have consequences--how many times has the President told us that--and this election had consequences. It means we have to take off the rose-colored glasses. Let's look at the events of Sunday, January 28, in Iraq, as told by two Los Angeles Times reporters, Louise Rough and Borzou Daragahi. That Sunday in America happened to be my wedding anniversary, a day of rest for many, a day of relaxation, a day for religion, a day for football, a day for basketball, a day for movies, a day for fun, a day for family; in Iraq, a day of hell. The headline of the LA Times, the following Monday, reads: ``Hundreds Die in Clash near Iraq Holy City.'' Here is the article. I don't know if this can be seen on the television, but it is a beautiful young girl, an Iraqi teenage girl. It could be your daughter; it could be mine. She is leaving school. She is stepping down steps that are bloodied by the blood of her schoolmates. She is barely looking around, and no one is helping her. This is a sight that is too often the reality in Iraq. The child has seen what no child should ever see, what we would do anything in the world to stop our children from seeing. And she appears numb. The reporters write about fighting erupting near holy city of Najaf on the Shiite holiday of Ashura. There were conflicting reports as to whether the fighters causing the trouble were Shiite or Sunni militia, but we know that our soldiers, working with Iraqis, killed several hundred gunmen in a fierce fight and a helicopter went down, our helicopter, and we lost our people. The reporters point out that our forces are fighting ``a complex patchwork of elusive enemies,'' and the deaths outside of Najaf would constitute the highest daily casualty toll inflicted by U.S. and Iraqi forces since U.S. troops arrived in Baghdad shortly after the March 2003 invasion. This group we wound up fighting, because the Iraqi soldiers couldn't handle it and they called us in, call themselves Heaven's Army, a messianic cult who believes in the imminent return of Imam Mahdi, the last in the line of Shiite saints who disappeared more than 1,000 years ago. Nomas, who is a spokesperson for the Iraqis, went on to lament to the reporters that many Shiites believe the end days are coming, due to all of the violence. This is what he said: There's nothing bizarre in Iraq anymore. We've seen the most incredible things. People think the end is near, and that is what this President is sending more troops into. Our troops have seen things we can hardly imagine, things that may haunt them throughout their lives. I have worked hard with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to try and fashion some legislation so we have a commission that is set up to look at the mental health problems of our soldiers. They are deep, the signature wounds of this war, brain damage and posttraumatic stress. In other parts of Iraq that Sunday, in addition to that school I showed and in addition to the fight with Heaven's Army, the messianic cult, we lost two U.S. soldiers and a marine. In Kirkuk, violence raged. In Babil Province, mortar rounds killed 10, and 5 bodies were found in the Tigris River. There was an assassination in Kut, a deadly car bombing in Fallujah. In western Baghdad, explosives hidden in a wooden cart killed 4 and injured 18, and an Industry Ministry advisor and his daughter were shot to death. On the east side of the Tigris, a bomb exploded on a bus, killing one. Two other bombs exploded, killing seven. A bank clerk was killed by gunmen in a car near her home. This was all in this one article. This is one day, January 28, one day. Fifty-four bodies were found, including a woman kidnapped 2 days prior. And finally, in Diyala Province northeast of Baghdad, 1,500 policemen, Iraqis, were charged with absenteeism and fleeing fighting. And this is what the President is sending more of our American soldiers into, and they wouldn't let us vote on it here. It is absolutely outrageous. It is immoral that we cannot vote on whether we agree with this escalation. Our soldiers gave the Iraqis their freedom, their Government, a sovereign nation, and now it is the Iraqis' turn to decide their future. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the man who knew a thing or two about being at war said: In the truest sense, freedom cannot be bestowed; it must be achieved. The Iraqis must achieve it. We cannot want it for them more than they are willing to fight for it themselves. All we are doing by sending more troops to Iraq is feeding an already out-of-control dependence. So I believe we must not only speak out against the escalation, but we should do everything in our power to stop it. We need to convene an international conference, as the Iraq Study Group called for. We need to call for a cease-fire. I haven't heard the word out of the Malaki's lips, ``cease-fire.'' It is his country. His people are killing each other. ``Cease-fire'' would be a term of art to give people hope that there can be peace. At this international conference, we can look at the long-term solutions. Right now our troops have mission impossible, acting as a police force in the middle of what is, by most accounts, a civil war. Nowhere in the resolution this Senate voted on authorizing force is it stated our soldiers' mission is being in the middle of a shooting civil war. We ought to ask this President to come back with a new authorization, if that is what he wants to do. Senator Warner has said that in the past. He said: I think we have to examine very carefully what Congress authorized the president to do in the context of a situation, if we're faced with all-out civil war. Well, that time has come. This President should, A, send a signal that he wants to see us vote on this escalation of his and, B, be willing to come back with a new authorization that says clearly that it is fine for our troops to be in the middle of a civil war. Enough is enough. Enough is enough. We have to end the paralysis of ``stay the course.'' This is a time of great challenge for the U.S. Congress. I have been very proud these past few weeks to see my colleagues on both sides of the aisle begin to speak out forcefully against this. For me, it is easy to oppose the President on this war because, as I said, I voted against it, as did the occupant of the chair at that time. We didn't have our questions answered. I understand it is harder for others. But I believe everybody--at least a majority of the Senate-- wants to vote on this escalation. They want to be heard on behalf of their constituents. So it is times like these that I recall the words of one of my heroes, the great Martin Luther King, who said: The ultimate measure of a man [and I suspect he meant woman, also] is not where they stand in the moments of comfort, but where they stand at times of challenge and controversy. He also said: Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. Well, this escalation matters. We ought to be heard on it. I commend my leader, Senator Reid, for holding firm on this issue. There ought to be an up-or-down vote on this escalation. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. Pesident, today I rise to introduce a bill for myself and Senator Feinstein to allow for subway tunneling in parts of Los Angeles. In 1985, in response to a methane gas explosion that destroyed a Ross Dress for Less Store in Los Angeles, Representative Waxman worked to enact a law that prohibits subway tunneling in his district. In 2004, the Los Angeles City Council passed a motion in support of reversing the laws banning tunneling. In February 2005, the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority board also voted to begin discussions of subway expansion. As a result, a panel of scientific experts was created to conduct an independent safety review that determined that subway tunneling could move forward safely with new technology. Representative Waxman introduced a bill to lift the Federal tunneling prohibition in the last Congress--where it passed the House--and again in this Congress. Senator Feinstein and I are introducing the same bill in the Senate. This legislation has the support of Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority. This bill is necessary to expand the subway, which is extremely important in Los Angeles--a city that ranks time and time again as the most congested region in the country. The Wilshire corridor is densely populated and is a large commercial area. The freeways and streets are filled--we need transit in this area.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. Pesident, today I rise to introduce a bill for myself and Senator Feinstein to allow for subway tunneling in parts of Los Angeles. In 1985, in response to a methane gas explosion that destroyed a Ross Dress for Less Store in Los Angeles, Representative Waxman worked to enact a law that prohibits subway tunneling in his district. In 2004, the Los Angeles City Council passed a motion in support of reversing the laws banning tunneling. In February 2005, the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority board also voted to begin discussions of subway expansion. As a result, a panel of scientific experts was created to conduct an independent safety review that determined that subway tunneling could move forward safely with new technology. Representative Waxman introduced a bill to lift the Federal tunneling prohibition in the last Congress--where it passed the House--and again in this Congress. Senator Feinstein and I are introducing the same bill in the Senate. This legislation has the support of Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority. This bill is necessary to expand the subway, which is extremely important in Los Angeles--a city that ranks time and time again as the most congested region in the country. The Wilshire corridor is densely populated and is a large commercial area. The freeways and streets are filled--we need transit in this area.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing 100 years of groundbreaking research and education at the University of California Riverside's Citrus Research Center-- Agricultural Experiment Station. This year, the university celebrates a century of improving our Nation's agriculture, environment, and natural resources. The idea behind the creation of a citrus experiment center began with the pioneering work of Riverside citrus grower John Henry Reed, who first proposed the idea in 1900. At the time Riverside was the hub of a rapidly expanding citrus industry, in part because refrigeration made nationwide shipments possible. His proposal became a reality in 1905 when the California Legislature passed a measure authorizing the establishment of the Citrus Experiment Station in Riverside. By 1907, the Citrus Experiment Station became an open branch of the Statewide Agricultural Experiment Station of the University of California. From that time on, the Citrus Experiment Station continued to grow and develop, to become one of California's premier agricultural research institutions. In 1914, the station maintained a staff of 18 with an annual budget of $60,000. Over the next 40 years, the Experiment Station's research area grew from 30 acres to almost 1,000 acres, and staff grew to 265. During that time, Leon D. Bachelor, as director, worked to initiate many of the long-term fertilizer experiments and worked to ensure the strength of the walnut industry through disease research. During his tenure, shipping and processing of produce was vastly improved, and improvements were implemented in citrus rootstocks, disease resistance, and fruit quality. While this was taking place, facilities and physical plant construction continued to increase as more research stations and research buildings were being built. In 1954 Weber Hall was constructed, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Boyden Entomological Laboratory was built in 1961, and research property increased to 1,100 acres. There were also advances in research focus, beginning in 1955 with the arrival of a vegetable crops group from UC Davis. During the next year, the Department of Nematology and the Biometrical Laboratory were established. Work also came from UCLA focusing on entomology and plant pathology on ornamentals. Just after this, the Air Pollution Research Center was established on the UC Riverside campus, and agronomists from Davis were welcomed to join in the research efforts. A Dry Lands Research Institute was added in 1963, and in the year following, the UC Riverside campus added a Department of Agricultural Engineering. The year after this, the Department of Agronomy accepted further work from UCLA on turf grasses. With the expansion of research into all of these areas, it became clear that the university did not simply research citrus, and the Citrus Experiment Station was appropriately renamed the Citrus Research Center and Agricultural Experiment Station, CRC-AES, in 1961. A full college devoted to this research effort was added in 1974, establishing the College of Natural and Agricultrual Sciences. Today, UC Riverside agricultural and natural science researchers pave the way for many of our Nation's important scientific advances. Studies in plant sciences and environmental and natural resources continue to improve the quality of life for our Nation and our planet. As the Citrus Research Center--Agricultural Experiment Station at the University of California, Riverside celebrates its centennial, I applaud the tremendous efforts and advances and look forward to another century of progress.