Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, the admirals and generals are essentially asking to take that money, that $3.7 billion, out of the $10 billion, and divert it to other programs. I am not doing that. I am simply fencing the money and saying: You can spend it when the tests pass. So they are really asking more than I am doing. The people who wrote this letter are some of our most distinguished military men and women. I am going to read the names of these generals and admirals: ADM William J. Crowe, United States Navy, Retired; GEN Alfred G. Hansen, United States Air Force, Retired; GEN Joseph Hoar, U.S. Marine Corps, Retired; LTG Henry E. Emerson, Army, Retired; LTG Robert Gard, Jr., Army, Retired; VADM Carl Hanson, Navy, Retired; LTG James Hollingsworth, Army, Retired; LTG Arlen Jameson, Air Force, Retired; LTG Robert Kelley, Air Force, Retired; LTG John Kjellstrom, Army, Retired; LTG Dennis McAuliffe, Army, retired;--they are all retired, so I will not continue to say that--LTG Charles P. Otstott, Army; LTG Thomas Rienzi, Army; VADM John Shanahan, Navy; LTG Dewitt Smith, Jr., Army; LTG Horace G. Taylor, Army; LTG James Thompson, Army; LTG Alexander Weyand, Army; MG Robert Appleby, Army.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, we are going to face a series of amendments on the missile defense system, and I believe I have an amendment which I am surprised we even have to have a long debate about because it is so straightforward. It says let us not spend the money to deploy the system until it has been tested and until it has been certified as passing those tests by the one office that has the capability of doing it, which is the Office of Director of Operational Test and Evaluation. We want to ensure that the ballistic missile defense system the President plans to deploy later this year has passed these tests. In 1983, Congress created the Office of the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation--DOT&E. It is now headed by Mr. Thomas Christie. The Office of DOT&E was created under the ``fly before you buy'' law. ``Fly before you buy'' makes a lot of sense for our taxpayers. Frankly, when it comes to defending our country, my goodness, how much more important can it be before we tell our people they are protected that we actually know they are protected and that the tests which have been done have been signed off on by the very office that has been created for that purpose? The office oversees the operational testing programs of all major military systems. Operational testing is intended to be as realistic as possible. This includes testing at night, testing in bad weather, using soldiers rather than contractors who have a special interest in the outcome of the test, and using expected enemy countermeasures. Let me repeat that. In order to have operational tests that you can trust, the testing has to be done under realistic circumstances. We don't know if our enemy is going to attack us on a beautiful, clear day with the wind blowing at a certain rate. The fact is, we need to test under the harshest conditions so that we know what we are deploying works. It must be a realistic test. Most importantly, the tests must be conducted by the Office of DOT&E-- the program that is developing the weapons system. I am sure you are going to hear people stand up and fight against this amendment. I have to tell you that if you really look at the facts, they do not have them on this side. If I were to ask one of my constituents, who knew nothing about this at all, who they would rather have testing our military systems to make sure they work, the contractor, who has an economic interest in it; the program director, who has an economic interest in getting the program funded; or basically an independent office that was set up by Congress, the Office of Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, I think the answer would be clear. People would want an objective test. My amendment requires that the Secretary of Defense confirm that the ground-based, midcourse missile defense system has passed these operational tests prior to deployment for initial defensive operations. It is very simple--fly before you buy, test before you deploy, common sense, following the wishes of Congress that knew this was a problem when we set up that office. Here is why it is important. This amendment is important because the current plan of the Missile Defense Agency does not include any operational testing at any time in the foreseeable future. Let me say that again. The current plan of the Missile Defense Agency does not include any operational testing at any time in the foreseeable future. And this statement I just made has been confirmed by the Office of Director of Operational Test and Evaluation. Imagine: We are about to spend $10 billion on this program. It is the biggest program in the defense budget, as I understand it, and we are going to deploy without operational testing. On December 17, 2002, President Bush announced that the United States will declare a midcourse ballistic missile defense system ready for defense operations at the end of the year. That is interesting. He declared and announced that we would be ready to deploy before the system was tested. He should say: Assuming it passes the tests by the appropriate evaluation agency, which is DOT&E. But he didn't say that. The Pentagon's current plan is to deploy the first interceptor missile in late July, and before the system becomes operational by the end of September when five interceptors are in place at Fort Greeley, AK. The Missile Defense Agency hopes to have a total of 10 interceptor missiles in place by the end of January 5 at both Fort Greeley and Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. They are moving ahead without any operational testing done by the office that was created to do this. This plan that I described to you, known as Block 2004, will eventually result in the deployment of 20 missile interceptors by the end of next year. There is a serious problem here. We have no way of knowing that these interceptor missiles will actually be able to protect us from an incoming ballistic missile attack. The system President Bush is deploying has been tested eight times--not by the Director of the Office of Operational Test and Evaluation, it has been tested by the DOD. The contractor was involved in those tests, and the program director was involved in those tests of the Missile Defense Agency, but not the office that has been created to be the objective tester. The tests were conducted, again, by the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency in cooperation with the contractor--not the DOT&E. These tests were highly scripted. They occurred in an unrealistic test environment, and only five of the eight were successful. Here is the GAO report. The date is April of 2004. This is a relatively new report. In this report, the GAO criticizes the administration's plan, saying: as a result of testing shortfalls and the limited time available to test the BMDS [Ballistic Missile Defense System] being fielded, system effectiveness will be largely unproven when the initial capability goes on alert at the end of September 2004. That is when the initial five missiles will be deployed. This report from the General Accounting Office, which is the investigative arm of the Congress, goes on to say: the Missile Defense Agency predicts with confidence that the September 2004 defensive capability will provide protection of the United States against limited attacks from Northeast Asia. However, testing in 2003 did little to demonstrate the predicted effectiveness of the system's capability to defeat ballistic missiles as an integrated system. And from the GAO, who we pay a lot of money to, to advise us, they go on to say: None of the components of the defensive capability have yet to be flight tested in their fielded configuration (i.e., using production-representative hardware). My friends, the GAO has essentially exposed the fact that the President plans a ``Wizard of Oz'' defense. We have seen the Wizard of Oz. That Wizard of Oz was scary, but when you pull back the curtain, it was just some little guy. I want to see a successful missile defense system. I want to see it work. Ever since I have been in Congress, I have been voting continually for research, research, so we have one system in place that works. It would be the greatest to have. We may eventually have it. I hope to God we do. I am from California. I want a missile defense system. I am worried. I am just as worried, however, that if we tell our people they are defended and we do not have objective testing behind it, it will be a very hard blow to people and a waste of money that, God knows, we need in other areas of the military and in other ways to defend our people from the suitcase bomb or an attack on a nuclear power plant, which we know the terrorists are looking at. The President's decision, in my view, before the testing is done, is a waste of our resources. The total amount requested for missile defense in 2005 is $10.2 billion, more than any other defense system in one year ever. To put this $10.2 billion in perspective, let me read the budgets of some of the programs in agencies critical to protecting us from the threat of terrorism. I have a chart listing what we spend in other areas that are key in our fight against terrorism. The entire missile defense system is $10.2 billion. That includes everything, research and everything else. I am talking about the deployment costs, which are about $3.7 billion of the $10 billion. This chart shows the $10.2 billion, which is the entire missile defense cost. The money we are talking about spending is $3.7 billion to deploy these 20 missiles. Look what we have spent on the other areas to protect our people. The customs and border protection is $6.2 billion. My colleague, Senator McCain, right now is holding a hearing--unfortunately I could not do it because I had to be here--on our problems at the border, protecting our borders from terrorism. The fact is, we need to spend more in high- tech equipment to better protect our people from terrorists crossing the border. The total is $6.2 billion, compared to $10.2 billion on missile defense; Transportation security, $5.3 billion; Coast Guard, $7.4 billion; FEMA, $4.8 billion; Office of Domestic Preparedness, $3.5 billion. This is what we are talking about spending on this deployment--$3.7 billion of the $10 billion--before it is operationally tested by the office that is supposed to do that. We know the customs and border protection is the front line in protecting the American public against terrorism. Transportation Security Administration--we all know what happened on 9/11; they are responsible for keeping our airlines safe but also our railroads and our ports secure--$5.3 billion, and we are going to spend $3.7 billion on an untested deployment? Coast Guard, $7.4 billion. Imagine that is what we spend on the Coast Guard, and they are right in the line of fire. I visit my Coast Guard ports all the time. They are the lead Federal agency in maritime safety. They are so important. We spend $7.4 billion. And we are spending $10.2 billion on the entire missile defense and ready to toss out $3.7 billion of that in this initial deployment. All of FEMA, the lead agency for preparing us to respond to all domestic disasters, including acts of terrorism, $4.8 billion. We are about to spend $3.7 billion on an untested system, and we are spending $4.8 billion on FEMA. Office of Domestic Preparedness, $3.5 billion, which is less than we will spend on an untested system. They are the lead agency responsible for preparing the Nation against terrorism by assisting States and local governments in preparing for terrorists acts. The Presiding Officer must hear the same things I hear at home from the police officers, from nurses, from the first responders, the firefighters. They are hurting. They need our help. Would it not be better at the moment now not to waste $3.7 billion on this initial deployment, if we have that extra funding, but to put it into the fight on terrorism? My amendment does not cut any money from this program. My amendment does not cut one dollar from the program. However, it says, do not spend the money until the system is operationally tested. We will have other attempts because other people will be taking out some funding. I do not touch the funding. All I say is, test it before you deploy it. If the Office of Operational Test and Evaluation comes back with a good report, then I say please deploy but not until that time. We are at war with al-Qaida and with terrorism. The only four nations that have ever successfully tested a nuclear capable intercontinental missile are Russia, France, Britain, and China. We are not at war with them. We will talk about Korea and Iran. There are fears, and I share the fears, that this technology could get into the hands of the wrong countries or somehow a terrorist could get his or her hands on one of these missiles. That is why I want to protect our country against the potential of this kind of a strike. However, I do not want a make- believe system. I do not want a Wizard of Oz system. I want a system I can look my people in the eye and say: We spent $3.7 billion deploying the first aspects of this system, and we know it works. I think my people deserve to know that. When I was in the House, I was on the Armed Services Committee, and I worked very hard on procurement reforms. I enjoyed so much being on the Armed Services Committee in the House. I was there for years. We had some wonderful debates. What we found is: ``Fly before you buy'' is essential. And that is all we are saying. We want to know the system works. We want to be able to tell the people the system works. And, clearly, we should look at the threat we face. Now, the reason I am for this program, the reason I have voted for this program many times for research, is because I want to have a system that works. Why? North Korea. I am very fearful of North Korea. Although I believe we can try our best and do more to negotiate with them, there is no question I am worried about a potential missile system in North Korea. But here is the issue. We have a capability that is not talked about that much here, but the Pentagon's former Director of DOT&E, Philip Coyle, has said: We would never wait until North Korea has launched a missile attack. ``We'd blow it up on the ground.'' We have the capability to know when these missiles are being moved into place. Let me repeat what Philip Coyle said, the Pentagon's former Director of DOT&E: We would never wait until the thing was launched. We'd blow it up on the ground. Now, I subscribe to that theory. I want to blow it up on the ground. I think Philip Coyle is right. With our capabilities, we could see any movement, and we would know. But wouldn't it be great to intercept a missile once it is in the air? Absolutely. If we could not destroy it before it was launched, definitely. But let's operationally test the system first, with the people who are hired to do this for the taxpayers. Now, let's hear what the Union of Concerned Scientists is saying. They are an independent nongovernmental organization. They released an analysis of the President's plan to deploy a missile defense system. Let me read you two of their findings: The Block 2004 missile defense will have no demonstrated capability to defend against a real attack since all flight intercept tests have been conducted under highly scripted conditions with the defense given advance information about the attack details. Now, do we think our enemies are going to place a call to us and say here is what we are going to do; here is what time we are going to do it; here is the weather we are going to do it in; here is the day? No. The fact is, we have not realistically tested this system. This is what the Union of Concerned Scientists says: Unsophisticated countermeasures that could readily be implemented by countries such as North Korea remain an unsolved problem for mid-course defenses against long-range missiles. So they are calling our countermeasures that we are using unsophisticated. It is a problem. This means that any country able to launch an ICBM is also capable of using countermeasures to fool our interceptors. The Union of Concerned Scientists report ends with their recommendation that the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency should: [H]alt its deployment of the Block 20O4 Ground-based Mid- course Defense system and Congress should require MDA to conduct operationally realistic testing of the system before it is deployed. I thank the Union of Concerned Scientists because it was their very clear writing that led me to this amendment. In addition, common sense led me to this amendment. In addition, many former generals who have spoken out on this led me to this amendment. I agree with the scientists. That is why my amendment says that before we declare the system operational, we should know that it has been tested in a realistic manner. I want to show you the list of 49 generals who have written on this issue. I say to the Presiding Officer, I think you would find this very interesting. This is a list of 49 generals and admirals who call for missile defense postponement because they do not believe the testing is adequate. In a recent statement these 49 generals and admirals have written to President Bush asking that the deployment of a ground-based midcourse missile defense system be postponed. Their letter points out that the Pentagon has waived the operational testing requirements that are essential to determining whether this highly complex system of systems is effective and suitable. The last paragraph of their letter sums up the concerns of these generals and admirals: As you have said, Mr. President, our highest priority is to prevent terrorists from acquiring and deploying weapons of mass destruction. We agree. We therefore recommend, as the militarily responsible course of action-- The militarily responsible course of action-- that you postpone operational deployment of the expensive and untested GMD system and transfer the associated funding to accelerated programs to secure the multitude of facilities containing nuclear weapons and materials and to protect our ports and borders against terrorists who may attempt to smuggle weapons of mass destruction into the United States. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record this letter signed by 49 retired generals and admirals.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3368.

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

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I wish to recognize a constituent, Frank Baker, who will mark his 50th year of exemplary service to the American Legion California Boys State Program. Since 1935, the Boys State Program has brought together high school boys from across their States to immerse them in a week of education about, and simulation of, their State government. The California program began in 1938, and Mr. Baker is the second person in the history of the California Boys State program to reach the milestone of 50 years of service. Mr. Baker joined the California Boys State staff in 1955 as a clerk and in 1958 was named secretary of the program. He supported the counseling staff in delivering excellent programming to the Boys State delegates year after year. In 1975, Mr. Baker was elevated to the treasurer of the Boys State Program. He became the program administrator in 1982 and has been responsible for overseeing the infrastructure of the Boys State Program. The 2004 California Boys State session will be Mr. Baker's 50th consecutive year of service. Mr. Baker has been a leader outside of the California Boys State program as well, serving in the U.S. Army's 103rd Infantry in Germany, France, and Italy in World War II. Mr. Baker has been active in the Boy Scouts of America and was involved with the Sea Scouts in the 1940s. Since 1990, Mr. Baker has been a Kiwanis member and has raised money for Kiwanis House, the Just for Kids Program and the Teddy Bear Purchase Program for the Sacramento County Sheriff's Department. He also volunteered his time as a court spokesman for neglected and abused children for 8 years through the court-appointed special advocates of Sacramento. Mr. Baker began a long teaching career in 1952 when he joined the business department at Sacramento High School. After moving to Hiram Johnson High School--where he taught until his retirement in 1998--he served as chairman of the business department and taught classes at Sacramento City College. Mr. Baker's actions demonstrate his dedication to serving his country and the State of California, and I offer my hearty congratulations to him on his 50th year of service to the California Boys State program.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise today to pay my respects to one of California's own, President Ronald Reagan. I first met President Reagan right after I was elected to Congress in 1982. We were a large Democratic freshman class, and when I was invited to the White House, I wondered how President Reagan would greet us. After all, he had campaigned hard for a Republican Congress, and having lost an election myself I knew the feeling of disappointment. When we arrived at the White House, President Reagan could not have been more gracious to us; the same for Mrs. Reagan. I still have the photo from that evening hanging in my home office. Twenty-two years ago, Ronald Reagan taught me that you can disagree without being disagreeable, that you could set aside those disagreements even though they were deep. President Reagan once said: A lot of trouble in the world would disappear if we were talking to each other instead of about each other. He believed if we were all respectful and pleasant to one another, we could find those areas of common ground. We can reach across the aisle. We can get things done. Believe me, that was a good lesson for me and for all of us that evening because clearly, in the Senate, with the rules of the Senate, the only way to get things done is by working together. I look at the occupant of the Chair, and I know that with our disagreements on many issues, we have come together on a few occasions, and we have won for our constituents and for this country. When I look back to President Reagan's record, I realize that not only did he bring this kind of an attitude of working together to Washington, but that had been his hallmark in California as well. As a Republican Governor, he was working with a Democratic State legislature. So it seems President Reagan had to learn how to do this both in the State and in the Nation's Capital. In those years as Governor, in keeping with the values and wishes of most Californians, he helped to establish the Redwood National Park. He regulated auto emissions to reduce pollution. He signed a bill that liberalized a woman's right to choose. He opposed the State proposition that discriminated against teachers based on sexual orientation. You can see Governor Reagan was willing to reach across and find consensus. Ronald Reagan, of course, did continue to reach across the aisle when he became President. Although there were serious disagreements, he worked closely with a Democratic House to ratify and sign important arms control agreements, increasing funds for math and science education, reauthorizing the Superfund hazardous waste cleanup program, which is so important. The basis of the program is the polluter should pay. Interestingly, we don't seem to have that kind of support today. President Reagan once said: ``There is no limit to what a man can do or where he can go, if he doesn't mind who gets the credit.'' And how important that quote is when it comes to politics. President Reagan was a conservative. He was not an ideologue. He fulfilled a campaign promise to appoint the first woman to the Supreme Court. He chose Sandra Day O'Connor as the first woman Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, even though she was considered too moderate by many conservatives. He tried to abolish the National Endowment for the Arts but, after losing that fight, he moved on. I remember that. He moved on without trying to force the issue through the backdoor. I respect that. I remember the fight to keep the National Endowment for the Arts. Many Republicans in my State didn't agree with President Reagan. They mobilized with the Democrats. President Reagan said, Well, this is what I think. He went forward, and when he lost, that was it. Of course, there are other issues of disagreement--from offshore oil drilling to the role of the national Government, to the fight against AIDS, to policies in Central America. Those disagreements were deep, but they were never taken personally by President Reagan. He and House Speaker Tip O'Neill were genuinely fond of each other. They often shared a drink after work, and they laughed after a day of locking horns. Their good nature was infectious. It raised the level of comity throughout the Nation's Capital. How I long for those days. It is time that in the spirit of Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill, we see more bipartisan spirit in our work. In California, there are tributes to Ronald Reagan running around the clock. I know it is true nationally, but because he was our Governor and we are so proud he is part of our legacy, we are seeing and listening to Ronald Reagan's stories and Ronald Reagan quotes. I found one of these very interesting. There was a question asked to President Reagan after he had completed his 8 years in office. The question was: What do you most want to be remembered for? His answer was this: The millions of jobs that were created while he was President and America regaining respect in the world. Millions of jobs created and America regaining respect in the world. You think about how universal those two achievements are because right now that is a lot of the focus of attention--job creation and respect in the world. It is interesting how prophetic those words are. I personally believe that 50 years from now, if not now, President Reagan will be remembered for his focus on freedom for the people behind the Iron Curtain. He saw in Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev a man he could successfully challenge to step to the plate. And when President Reagan said, tear down this wall, he said it directly to Mr. Gorbachev. He touched Mr. Gorbachev, and he touched America. He touched people around the world. In a moving eulogy in yesterday's New York Times Mr. Gorbachev wrote: Reagan was a man of the right but while adhering to his convictions, with which one could agree or disagree, he was not dogmatic. He was looking for negotiations and for cooperation. In that, you have to understand that respect for other people and their ideas, the ability to step into their shoes is very important. We name buildings and rooms and public places after leaders, and we have named many public places after Ronald Reagan. But I truly believe that now the greatest thing we can do in Ronald Reagan's memory is to find a cure for the disease that took his life and took him away from his loved ones and the world stage long before his physical life ended. Alzheimer's disease is a plague that ravages millions of Americans and those who love them. Caused by abnormal plaques and tangled nerve fibers in the brain, the disease attacks the cells that control thought, memory, and language. The brain, if you look at it, becomes more and more like a child's brain. It kills nerve cells that are vital to memory. If you think about it, when you lose your memory, you lose who you are. And to see someone like Ronald Reagan, who held all the power for 8 years that anyone could ever dream to hold, and to have him not be able to remember that is a tragedy. Alzheimer's lowers the level of chemicals that carry messages between nerve cells and the brain. The progress of Alzheimer's is usually slow, but it is inexorable. Beginning with mild symptoms, such as forgetfulness, Alzheimer's gradually robs its victims of the ability to think clearly, speak clearly, understand others, or care for themselves in any way. Ten years ago Ronald Reagan knew he was battling Alzheimer's. He knew he was losing the battle. In an act of tremendous courage and in a handwritten open letter, he told the American people he was suffering from the illness. He wrote: I now begin the journey that will lead me into the sunset of my life. And he movingly wrote: I know that for America there will always be a bright dawn ahead. So even in his darkest hour, President Reagan's eternal optimism shone through. Nancy Reagan stood by her husband throughout this long ordeal, protecting him in his most vulnerable time. In recent years, she has become a leading advocate of increased funding for medical research to fight Alzheimer's and other diseases. She has been brave and courageous in her advocacy. Ironically, just a few weeks ago, I wrote an open letter to her praising her for her strength and moving forward to use her considerable influence to push forward stem cell research. To honor Ronald Reagan and relieve the suffering of millions of American families, we must pursue every avenue of research and treatment for Alzheimer's and other diseases. In memory of Ronald Reagan and all of the families who have lost loved ones to Alzheimer's, let us seek a brighter dawn for Alzheimer's victims and their families. So, Mr. President, Californians are speaking across party lines for a man who was able to set aside ideology to make progress, to work with those who might not have agreed with him on every point. I think it is a terrific lesson to all of us in this time and in this place in our Nation's history. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, it is my honor to speak in memory of Harold ``Hal'' Rubin, a professor and activist who will always be remembered for his love of family, politics and the environment. Hal Rubin was an excellent example of a citizen who consistently worked to make his community a better place. Mr. Rubin's love for politics motivated his involvement in numerous local issues and political races in Placer County. He was passionate about issues such as campaign spending limits, the environment and preserving the rural characteristics of Placer County. Hal had an exceptional career as a professor. He began his teaching career as a professor of English and Political Science at Sierra Community College. At Sierra, he was voted by the students as their favorite professor. He continued his teaching career as a professor of journalism at California State University, Sacramento. His strong writing skills coupled with his concern for the environment led him to a job as a senior technical writer for what is now GenCorp Incorporated, where he wrote about nuclear propulsion in the Nation's space program. Those traits combined with his interest in politics also led him to a freelance writing career, with articles published in various California magazines. In addition to his dedication to politics, teaching and the environment, Hal was devoted to serving his country. His service during World War II as a member of the Army Air Force was an act of selfless dedication to protecting our Nation. He also served as a member of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Post 1942. Hal Rubin committed his life to his community, his Nation and most of all his family. He touched the lives of many, and his impact on his community will be long remembered.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, Frances Preston, the president and chief executive officer of BMI announced in April that she is stepping down from her leadership role at BMI. Though I know she will continue to play a role at BMI, I take this opportunity to commend her for distinguished and dedicated service to the writers, composers, and publisher of BMI, as well as to the broader creative community. For many years, Mrs. Preston has successfully guided BMI to a position of international leadership in the entertainment industry. She is one of the industry's most widely admired executives. Fortune magazine has called her ``one of the true powerhouses of the pop music business.'' In large part as a result of her business and creative acumen, BMI today represents legendary artists ranging from Sting to Paul Simon to Shania Twain. And, in the world of public policy, Mrs. Preston has been a strong voice for creators' rights. She also maintains a passionate dedication to a number of charities and serves in a volunteer capacity as the president of the largest medical charity, the T.J. Martell Foundation for Leukemia, Cancer and AIDS Research. The list of awards Mrs. Preston has received for excellence in industry and public service is too long to list here. They range from being the first non-performing woman invited to join New York's prestigious Friar's Club in 1993 to the American Women in Radio and Television's Outstanding Achievement Award in 1998 to induction in the Broadcasting and Cable Hall of Fame in 1999. More recent honors include the Touchstone Advocate Award from Women in Music in October 2003 and the NARAS Heroes Award from the New York Chapter of the Recording Academy in December 2003. Frances Preston has been successful in business, a leader in her community, and generous in her service. She leaves a lasting legacy of leadership and excellence.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, since 2002, I have raised serious concerns about this administration's policy on Iraq, including the President's failure to plan for post-war Iraq and his inability to convince much of the world to share the burden by providing troops and funding. However, I will support the President's request for $25 billion to support our military men and women who are serving so bravely under extremely difficult conditions. When the President initially requested this additional funding on May 12, it was a blank check. It allowed the President to spend funds on any account within the DoD for any purpose having to do with Iraq or Afghanistan. Because of the good work of many in this Chamber, on both sides of the aisle, the Warner amendment is a significant improvement on the President's initial request. The Warner amendment ensures that $20 billion of the $25 billion request will be spent on the operation and maintenance accounts of the Armed Forces and that $2 billion will be dedicated solely to the military personnel accounts. This is vastly different from the President's request, which would have given him the authority to spend the $25 billion in any manner in which he thought appropriate. The Warner amendment also contains an important provision that requires a monthly report to Congress on the use of this $25 billion authority. With this reporting requirement, Congress can ensure that every penny is being used for the well-being of our military men and women who are serving this country with great honor.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, before the Memorial Day recess, I joined with Senators Hatch, Bingaman, and Hutchison in introducing the Commission to Study the Potential Creation of a National Museum of the American Latino Community Act of 2004. This legislation would create a national commission to study and plan for a National Museum of the American Latino, possibly in Washington, DC. Congressman Xavier Becerra and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus have sponsored companion legislation in the House. Throughout our Nation's history, Latinos have enriched our culture and economy, and contributed to our national defense. In every American war and conflict, Latinos have served honorably next to their fellow Americans. It is time for our Nation's history and public institutions to fully recognize and celebrate our Latino community. Though Latinos have been the largest ethnic minority group in California for some time, the Census Bureau recently reported that Latinos are now the largest minority group in the country and have grown in population in every region. As of July 2002, there were 38.8 million Latinos in the United States. One out of every three of these Latinos is under the age of 18. Also, the southern states other than Texas have seen the population of Latinos double between 1990 and 2000. The size, youth, and growth of this population ensure that American Latinos will continue to play a critical role in every region of the country and in every aspect of American life. As a result, a greater understanding of this population and its history will benefit all Americans. The American Latino experience in the United States has a history as long as the Nation is old. From families with Puerto Rican and Dominican origins in New York to those with Cuban blood in Miami to the giant Mexican American and Central American communities in California and numerous other communities in every region of the country--American Latinos share a host of common values and similar experiences. A National Museum of the American Latino would help the larger American family celebrate this community's history and diversity. The Smithsonian Institution is the world's largest museum and research complex, with 16 museums in the District of Columbia and New York City. The Smithsonian Institution museums, especially those on the National Mall, play a unique and important role in educating visitors to the Nation's capital about America's history, arts, and culture. The American people and international visitors recognize the Smithsonian Institution as the premier American museum, representing the vast diversity of cultural history of the United States. It is worth examining the potential for adding a National Museum of the American Latino to the Smithsonian family. After extensive dialogue, conferences, and collaboration among educators, scholars, and community leaders as well as museums, universities, cultural, and public institutions, a task force appointed to examine the Smithsonian Institution's representation of American Latinos in its permanent exhibits and other public programs published ``Willful Neglect: The Smithsonian Institution and U.S. Latinos'' in May 1994 and ``Toward a Shared Vision: U.S. Latinos and the Smithsonian Institution'' in October 1997. The reports indicate that the Smithsonian historically had a poor record of representing Latinos. This criticism led to the creation of the Smithsonian's Center for Latino Initiatives in 1998. The Center for Latino Initiatives has increased the profile of Latino arts and culture and deserves credit for promoting diversity and understanding of American Latino culture among the Smithsonian's visitors. The Center's short history has shown that American Latino exhibits and programs are well received by the public and by the Latino community, which benefits from having some representation at the Smithsonian. Still, the level of representation at the Smithsonian of the Latino community is far from where it should be given the American Latino history, demography, and contributions to the American cultural landscape. I thank Senators Hatch, Bingaman, and Hutchison for joining with me in introducing this bill. I look forward to working with them to pass this legislation, and I encourage all my colleagues to join us in this effort.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, the famous poster of ``Rosie the Riveter,'' created by J. Howard Miller in 1943, was quite well known throughout America during World War II. The slogan on the poster--``WE CAN DO IT!''--captured the spirit and dedication of our Nation's women during World War II. ``Rosie the Riveter'' became a nickname for the women who entered the workforce during the war. World War II profoundly changed the role and status of American women. During this war, over 6 million women joined the workforce, filling jobs that had been traditionally held by men. For the first time in history, women in large numbers worked to produce ships, planes, tanks, trucks, guns and ammunition that were essential to the war effort. They worked in factories while raising their kids--often by themselves as their husbands were fighting abroad. In California, women worked in factories across the state, from the Douglas Aircraft Company plant in Long Beach to the Ford Assembly plant in Richmond, CA. These women's contributions on the homefront were invaluable to our nation's victory in World War II. As we approach Memorial Day--and the dedication of the World War II Memorial--I want to express my gratitude to our Nation's ``Rosies'' for their effort in helping America win the war. In 2000, Congress enacted legislation, introduced by Representative George Miller, to create the Rosie the Riveter/World War II Home Front National Historical Park in Richmond, CA. Senator Feinstein and I introduced the Senate companion bill. Richmond, CA was chosen as the site since the city played a significant role in the World War II effort on the homefront. Fifty-six war industries operated in Richmond, and the Kaiser Shipyards produced more ships than any other shipyard in the United States. The Ford Assembly Plant prepared for shipment overseas more than 20 percent of all tanks and other combat vehicles used by the United States during World War II. The Rosie the Riveter/World War II Home Front National Historical Park is the first park created to commemorate the contributions of men and women on the U.S. home front during World War II and to preserve the historic sites, structures and stories associated with World War II. I am so pleased that the park, in partnership with Ford Motor Company and the National Park Foundation, has initiated a campaign to find ``Rosies'' across the country to collect their personal stories and memorabilia to share with future generations. I commend Ford Motor Company and the National Park Foundation for their efforts to preserve such an important piece of our history. In this historic year--the 60th anniversary of D-Day--while we are honoring the Nation's veterans, let us not forget to honor the women whose contributions were critical to our success in World War II.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, Senator Kyl has offered an amendment expressing the sense of the Senate that an excise tax should be imposed on any lawyer's contingency fees in tobacco cases when those fees exceed the equivalent of $20,000 per hour. I oppose this amendment because it singles out only one group of people who will be subjected to a government- imposed salary cap--lawyers who go after the tobacco companies. The Kyl amendment does not apply to the CEO of Halliburton or Enron. It does not apply to the CEO of an HMO or a drug company. It does not even apply to lawyers who defend tobacco companies. I would be happy to consider a fair and balanced amendment. But this one-sided amendment that goes after lawyers because they go after the tobacco companies should be defeated.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise today to offer my congratulations to Dr. Philip C. Hopewell, MD. The American Lung Association has awarded Hopewell the Edward Livingston Trudeau Medal for his life-long achievements in the prevention, research treatment and cure of lung-related diseases. The Trudeau Medal is awarded by the American Lung Association in honor of the distinguished scientist, Edward Livingston Trudeau, founder of the American Lung Association and its first president. Dr. Hopewell is a world-renowned expert in tuberculosis control. He has literally traveled the globe offering technical advice and hands on practical guidance to tuberculosis control programs in developing nations. Dr. Hopewell has seen extended service in Peru and Nigeria and has worked with the PanAmerican Health Organization and the World Health Organization to advance TB control efforts around the world. While Dr. Hopewell's work has been a boon to many countries, he has also worked hard to protect the health of Americans. As a leading researcher on the interaction between TB and HIV-AIDS infection, Dr. Hopewell and his colleagues at UCSF are credited with for the dramatic 60 percent reduction in TB cases in San Francisco in the past decade. Dr. Hopewell is a teacher, a scientist and a healer. But he is also an advocate. Dr. Hopewell is equally at home sharing his expertise with members of Congress, as he is with health-workers in Peru. In part because of his advocacy, the U.S. has significantly increased its commitment to global TB control over the past 5 years. I am pleased to say that I have played a role in supporting the work of Dr. Hopewell and his colleagues around the globe to identify, treat and prevent TB. As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I have worked to increase the U.S. contribution for global TB control by supporting increased funding for TB programs at the US Agency for International Development. Increased support at USAID has lead to the development of a country specific plan to eliminate TB in high burden countries and is achieving results in many high burden TB countries. While we still have a long way to go to effectively control and prevent TB in the U.S. and around the globe, it is important to recognize and celebrate those individuals who have helped achieve the advances we have made so far. Please join me in honoring Dr. Hopewell for his leadership, passion and tireless work to eliminate tuberculosis.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am proud to be a cosponsor of this important amendment to look at closing excess overseas military bases before moving forward on any future round of base closures in this country. Over the past several years, I have consistently opposed additional rounds of base closures. The loss of a military base can have a devastating impact on local communities. This is not the time to subject our fragile national economy to the impact of another round-- especially when the DoD is threatening to close one-quarter of our domestic bases. In addition, I object the Department of Defense request for more base closures when it has failed to clean up former military bases shuttered during the previous four rounds. It will be decades before environmental remediation is complete at some former bases in California. The DoD must meet its responsibilities to the people of California before moving forward with any future rounds of base closures. Given the ongoing war on terrorism and our current military operations in Iraq, now is not the time to close more bases. We must ensure that we have sufficient military assets to meet our growing challenges. At a time that our forces are stretched thin, it does not make any sense to waste resources in going forward with next year's round of base closures. These are uncertain times and it is impossible to know what the force structure of the U.S. military will be in the near future. This amendment is a compromise. It allows the base closure process to move forward next year--but only for our installations overseas. It is logical to look at excess capacity overseas before looking at our domestic bases here at home. I am proud to cosponsor this important amendment and urge my colleagues to support it.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I ask for an additional 5 minutes.

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, landing on a carrier in good times is understandable. Many Presidents have done that. Unfortunately, for this one, he had a sign that said ``Mission Accomplished,'' and that was not to be. I understand wanting to land on a carrier in dress in good times. By the way, that was a moment when the whole world was with us, and he could have again engaged the international community, but he said no. They did not support us in the invasion, and they were not going to have any of the contracts. It was going to be kept for the people in this country, the Halliburtons, essentially. No, we could not share the glory of the moment--a horrific mistake, I think, when history is written. I do not fault a President for landing on a carrier in good times. I do not fault a President--all of them have done it--for marching in parades with the heroes, the people who chose to fight for their country. Every one of us loves to stand for them, every one of us feels stronger, every one of us feels taller, every one of us feels proud. I do not fault the President for wanting to stand next to heroes, many of whom signed up. I do not blame him. But when things go wrong, that is the time when a real leader steps forward. A real leader would stop his ordinary schedule. A real leader would not be climbing into a campaign bus. This is my opinion, and this is my country, and this is what I think. A real leader, when faced with a crisis such as this, would stop everything. We do not know how far up this goes. Today I read Secretary Rumsfeld told the committee he felt the rules of the prison were fine. After I came out of seeing those photographs, I said to myself and then I verbalized it to some of my colleagues, I do not want those photos seen by anyone in this country who has a pulse and a heart, but I have changed my mind. If Secretary Rumsfeld says he thought the rules in the prison were fine, then I want the people of America to see what happened under the rules of those prisons. We cannot baby the people. We must allow them to see what has happened. It is a sad day in America when I am in a car with my 9-year-old grandson and I have to turn the radio off of even a music station because I fear they might have a news break and he is going to hear something that is going to make him frightened. It is a hard time for our country, but we have had these hard times before. We have had the hard times domestically. We have had the hard times during war. After 9/11, I think the heart of this country was broken. We are facing a new enemy. It is going to be a long-term battle. I gave the President full authority to go get those people, the al-Qaida. Instead of doing that, he made a u-turn and went into Iraq with no plan, and we are paying a price. Those young people who are saying they were not trained, we will find out if that is a fact, but these are tough times. The thing that keeps me going is the greatness of the American people, the wisdom of the American people, the strength of our Constitution and our ability to face these things head on. That is where I will close today. The American people need to see the truth. They are told by Secretary Rumsfeld that what went on in that prison, that the rules of engagement in that prison, were fine with him. I want to clarify that. He did not say what went on in the prison was fine with him. He said the rules that governed the prison were fine with him. What I am saying is those rules that allowed this behavior, one prisoner being pulled by a belt over and over again, his head slammed against a steel door, his hands behind his back, others being forced into positions that I will not describe, being harmed in the most vulnerable ways imaginable. No, I did not want people to see it, but now I fear they must see it. All the talk about the privacy of the people, absolutely if they see it they cannot see faces. That is for sure. I did not expect to be here today even talking about this. I came to talk about another subject, but when I heard the Secretary of Defense defend the rules of that prison I felt I had to come and tell the people of this country, and the good people of my State who have sent me here twice, I think they need to see it for themselves. Do not take my word for it. Do not take the word of another Senator who says, oh, God, they are making such a fuss over this; what is all the outrage about. That is another reason they should see the pictures. Do not believe me. Do not believe that other Senator. Believe your eyes, believe what you see. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, since the war in Iraq, I have been coming to the floor to pay tribute to fallen soldiers, heroes from my State. Today, I do that. Unfortunately, there are well over a hundred gone in our State. Today, I want to pay tribute to the 10 young Americans killed since April 26. All of them are either from California or based in California. SSG Abraham D. Penamedina, age 32, died April 27 when his patrol came under sniper fire in Baghdad. He was from Los Angeles. LCpl Aaron Austin, age 21, died April 26, due to hostile fire in Al Anbar Province. He was assigned to Camp Pendleton. SGT Adam Estep, age 23, died April 21, when a rocket-propelled grenade hit his patrol in Baghdad. He was from Campbell, CA. SPC James Beckstrand, age 27, was from Escondido, CA. He died in Baghdad while part of a dismounted improvised explosive device sweep patrol when a vehicle approached his unit and the driver detonated a bomb. SPC Trevor Wine, age 22, died May 1, from injuries sustained on April 30, when his convoy vehicle hit an improvised explosive device in Tikrit. He was from Orange, CA. SPC Ramon Ojeda, age 22, died May 1, when his convoy was attacked in Al Amarah. He was from Ramona, CA. PFC Lyndon Marcus, Jr., age 21, was from Long Beach, CA. He died May 3, in Balad, Iraq, when his military vehicle rolled over into a canal. SGT Marvin Sprayberry III, age 21, died May 3, in Balad, Iraq, when his military vehicle rolled over into a canal. He was from Tehachapi, CA. Cpl Jeffrey Green, age 20, was assigned to Camp Pendleton, CA. He was found deceased on May 5, in the Euphrates River in Al Anbar Province. The cause of his death is under investigation. Cpl Dustin Schrage, age 20, was found deceased on May 6, in Al Anbar Province. The cause of his death is under investigation. He was from Camp Pendleton, CA. Madam President, 172 soldiers, who were either from California or based in California, have been killed by serving their country in Iraq. I pray for these young Americans. I pray for their families. I pray for their friends. My heart goes out to all of our soldiers, to all of them. It is because of my love for them and the country's love for them as they face danger at every turn that I call on this administration to finally get a doable, believable, well-thought-out plan and exit strategy for our troops. From day 1, we really scorned the international community. The coalition the President talks about, when we really look at the numbers, we are still carrying the burden of well over 90 percent, probably 95 percent, both in the number of troops there and in the cost to our taxpayers, which is ever increasing. Our troops were told they would be liberators, not occupiers. It has not gone the way they were promised. Even their stays in Iraq have been extended and extended. They are exhausted. I was pleased that my amendment to repay counties and cities that are paying the full salaries of guardsmen and reservists--at least reimburse them for 50 percent of the cost--was adopted. Because, in my opinion, this administration never had a plan from day 1, except for a brilliant military strategy which worked very well in the invasion part of this war, I believe our troops are in grave danger. Because nothing was expected to happen to them that has happened to them, they did not even have the equipment, they did not even have the training they needed. They are underequipped, they are ill trained, and that leads me to the prison scandal. I saw those photos yesterday, and I still cannot get them out of my mind. I did not see them all because I physically and mentally could not see any more of them, about 15 minutes' worth of the photos. What has made our country great has been our constant and consistent support for human rights. What has made our country great has been our respect for humanity. We have been a beacon of hope, not a beacon of fear, in the world. People have always looked up to America. We have been mighty, we have been strong, and we have been firm. Nobody is as strong as we are. No one can touch us militarily. That is clear. We have never, ever had a scandal like this where our people who say they were under direct orders did such despicable, brutal, terrifying acts against other human beings. People say there are despicable acts happening on so many sides, and they are so right. There are acts that are beyond description, such as what happened to young Mr. Berg and Danny Pearl. Does it make us any stronger, any more a leader to turn our backs on years of human rights, years of Geneva Conventions? Does it make us better? Does it make us stronger? Or does it make us more like them, those who have no respect for humanity? This is America. When I was a little girl, my parents said: We are different than everyone else. If someone hurts us, we will fight back, but we will do it within the context of humanity. Those acts that I saw against other human beings--some women, some who were never even charged with anything but were just being detained--the most horrendous sexual humiliation and, in some cases, attacks, I can tell you, most of us would have fainted if it was done to us, fainted rather than be conscious, rather than be knowing, rather than be debased. Most of us would want to be dead. Our President must take responsibility. He is the Commander in Chief. President Truman did not say, ``The buck stops anywhere else.'' It stops at the desk of the President. He is the head of the military.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, how much time do we have remaining?

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I come to the floor, first of all, to thank my colleagues for pointing out what is happening in every State in America today. People are struggling to get health care. My mother used to say, ``If you have your health, you have everything.'' I thought, as a child, what does she mean? Now, as I get older, I realize she is right because when your family gets stricken with a disease, with a problem that makes them hurt and unproductive, your world really falls apart. So, clearly, health care is a very big issue as we go into this election season. It should be a big issue every day here. We don't see the majority bringing up any kind of legislation to make life easier for people, in terms of their health care. We cannot even get enough votes to extend unemployment compensation for people who have been unemployed. So it is something for the people of America to think about.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I honor and share with my colleagues the memory of a very special man, Boyd Stewart of Marin County, who died April 17, 2004. He was 101 years old. Boyd Stewart was born at the Old Cottage Hospital in San Rafael in 1903. He grew up in a time when students rode horses to school. His family ran a cattle ranch in Nicasio and then moved it to Olema while Boyd was growing up. After 3 years at Stanford University, he came back to the ranch when his father passed away and managed it for the rest of his adult life. Boyd Stewart deeply felt the need to preserve open space for future generations, and he knew it could be done in a way that was compatible with agriculture. He was instrumental in the creation of Point Reyes National Seashore and the Golden Gate National Recreation Area. Concerned about the loss of farmland to urban development, in the 1960s he advocated the controversial idea that the Federal Government buy West Marin ranches for inclusion in the park and lease them back to the ranchers. His family's ranch transferred ownership to the National Park Service in 1970.. For decades he remained committed to his convictions, often in the face of opposition from powerful forces. Mr. Stewart served as a leading member of the Marin County Farm Bureau for more than 80 years. He also sat on the boards of the West Marin Chamber of Commerce and the Marin Humane Society. A cattle rancher by profession, he was given the Marin Humane Society's Humane Man of the Century award. Two years ago, Boyd Stewart was honored with the California Excellence in Range Management Award, along with his daughter, Jo Ann Stewart, and his granddaughter, Amanda Wisby, who continue to run the Stewart family ranch today. Boyd was a dynamic figure in West Marin. My staff and I always knew we could call on him for invaluable information and sound advice. He was the leading expert on West Marin agriculture, to whom agriculture commissioners turned for advice and information. His presence and his accomplishments in preserving Marin open space were greater than any other single person in Marin County in the last century. He was also a deeply-loved member of the Marin community and a wonderful, unique man with a clear mind and steady presence who will be deeply missed. We take comfort in knowing that countless future generations will benefit from his courage, his vision and his leadership.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill with my colleague, Senator Feinstein, to adjust the boundary of the John Muir National Historic Site. This bill, which is identical to legislation introduced in the House by Representative George Miller, would allow the Park Service to obtain a small parcel of property to create a parking area for the John Muir National Historic Site. This would make access to the site much easier. Naturalist John Muir lived in Martinez, CA, from 1890 until his death in 1914. While living in Martinez, Muir served as the first president and one of the founders of the Sierra Club, played a prominent role in the creation of several national parks, and wrote numerous articles and books on the importance of conservation. In 1964, John Muir's former residence became part of the National Park Service. Designated as a National Historic Site, John Muir's estate provides valuable open space in the San Francisco Bay area. In 1988, Congress enacted legislation to expand the John Muir Historic Site. Included in this site expansion was a 3.3 acre parcel of land owned by the city of Martinez, which was donated by the city to the National Park Service. Following a survey conducted as part of the development of the General Management Plan, the Park Service discovered that a two-tenths acre triangle adjacent to the acquired parcel did not appear to have an owner. Enactment of this legislation would allow the Park Service to either acquire the land, if an heir or owner is identified, or condemn the property if an heir or owner is not found. When the title to the land is clear, the Park Service wants to construct a parking area in order to meet the growing needs of the site users. This 9,500 square foot addition to the John Muir National Historic Site would allow the proposed parking area to accommodate school busses and provide 12 additional parking spaces. This bill authorizes a noncontroversial boundary adjustment and is supported by Contra Costa County and the city of Martinez. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill with my colleague, Senator Feinstein, to adjust the boundary of the John Muir National Historic Site. This bill, which is identical to legislation introduced in the House by Representative George Miller, would allow the Park Service to obtain a small parcel of property to create a parking area for the John Muir National Historic Site. This would make access to the site much easier. Naturalist John Muir lived in Martinez, CA, from 1890 until his death in 1914. While living in Martinez, Muir served as the first president and one of the founders of the Sierra Club, played a prominent role in the creation of several national parks, and wrote numerous articles and books on the importance of conservation. In 1964, John Muir's former residence became part of the National Park Service. Designated as a National Historic Site, John Muir's estate provides valuable open space in the San Francisco Bay area. In 1988, Congress enacted legislation to expand the John Muir Historic Site. Included in this site expansion was a 3.3 acre parcel of land owned by the city of Martinez, which was donated by the city to the National Park Service. Following a survey conducted as part of the development of the General Management Plan, the Park Service discovered that a two-tenths acre triangle adjacent to the acquired parcel did not appear to have an owner. Enactment of this legislation would allow the Park Service to either acquire the land, if an heir or owner is identified, or condemn the property if an heir or owner is not found. When the title to the land is clear, the Park Service wants to construct a parking area in order to meet the growing needs of the site users. This 9,500 square foot addition to the John Muir National Historic Site would allow the proposed parking area to accommodate school busses and provide 12 additional parking spaces. This bill authorizes a noncontroversial boundary adjustment and is supported by Contra Costa County and the city of Martinez. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I wish to honor and share with my colleagues the memory of a remarkable man, Reserve Deputy John Sandlin of Solano County, who died Friday, April 23, 2004. Deputy Sandlin spent almost 50 years working to protect his fellow citizens, serving a distinguished career in the Navy and as a volunteer deputy with the Solano County Sheriff's Office. Deputy Sandlin was killed in the line of duty when his patrol car spun out of control during a recent pursuit. John Sandlin was the devoted husband of Dr. Kay Talbot and the proud father of three daughters, Lizabeth, Lori and Susan. He was also the proud grandfather of seven grandchildren. Deputy Sandlin compiled a remarkable record in community policing with the Solano County Sheriff's Office, becoming its second most highly decorated officer. He spent 20 years as a volunteer reserve deputy who patrolled the streets most Friday nights for the past decade. Last May, he earned the Sheriff's Office Distinguished Service Medal and the Purple Heart. Sheriff Gary Stanton said of Deputy Sandlin, ``We lost a brother--a man who has been part of our department for 20 years.'' Before joining the Solano County Sheriff's Office, John served in the Navy for 22 years. He became a nuclear power instructor, served in the Submarine Service, and was awarded the Navy Commendation Medal for saving another's life. He attained the rank of Lieutenant Commander while on active duty. John Sandlin also spent 14 years at Westinghouse Electric Corporation as a Senior Mechanical Engineer and Documentation Manager. During his career at Westinghouse, he was sworn in as a reserve deputy sheriff with the Solano County Sheriff's Air Squadron. He earned the 1990 Community Service Award for his dedication to law enforcement and drug surveillance activities with the Solano County Sheriff's Department. After retiring from Westinghouse, he soon entered the patrol field training program in the Sheriff's Office and began to work on the ground, patrolling the streets to protect his community. John Sandlin died doing what he loved to do--providing protection for his community. He was a natural leader, a compassionate mentor, and an enthusiastic, charming and very well-liked member of the Sheriff's Office. We will always be grateful for Deputy Sandlin's heroic service defending our Nation and our freedoms, and protecting his community.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, as usual, my friend is very generous of spirit. Stay the course, modify the course, change the course--we need to change the dynamics of this. Some have suggested tearing down the prison. I think that might be an excellent idea to show our remorse, our sorrow, and our outrage. They say a picture is worth a thousand words. These pictures say terrible things, and we by our actions have to undo those pictures. My understanding is that a lot of these people who were conducting themselves in this atrocious fashion were kids. They were never trained. They did not understand. They were told: Just do whatever you have to do to get people to talk. I do not know if that is all true. We will get to the bottom of it. But one thing I do know is, you do not stay on a course when it is not working. We have lost over 700 of our beautiful people, some young, 18, 19, some 30, 40 years old leaving behind children. Some 3,000 plus have been wounded. And why doesn't Paul Wolfowitz know these numbers? What is wrong with him that he doesn't know these numbers? It is wrong. These are lives. These young people are not just some faceless, nameless cutout of a soldier. Mr. President, I am so filled with sadness. Every time I come to the Senate floor to read the name of Californians who have died--I know they are the best.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise today to celebrate the life and mourn the death of Officer Stephan Gray of the Merced Police Department. On April 15, 2004, Stephan Gray, age 34, became the first officer to be killed in the line of duty in the history of the Merced Police Department. Stephan is mourned by his wife Michelle Gray and their three children: Landess, 13; Isaiah, 5; and Cameron, 3. Officer Stephan Gray died in the line of duty while protecting the community that he cherished. Officer Gray worked for the Merced Police Department for seven years, where he was assigned to the Gang Violence Suppression Unit and the Special Operations Unit. Officer Gray was well known for going above and beyond the call of duty, distinguishing himself as a dedicated and brave officer through his many heroic efforts and accomplishments. During his tenure with Merced Police Department, Officer Gray received a commendation for assisting in the capture of a dangerous criminal street gang member and for saving the life of an eleven-month-old infant who was not breathing. Officer Gray devoted himself to making the streets safer for the people of Merced. Stephan Gray was also a loving husband, father, and son. He enjoyed playing catch with his son, Isaiah. He loved to sing and dance and was an avid scuba diver and tropical fish enthusiast. My heart goes out to his wife, his daughter, his sons, and the countless others whose lives he touched. I want them to know that people across California share their grief as we also salute the gift of his life and work. A gallant officer is gone, but he will not be forgotten. We can and must carry on his work by giving community police officers and other first responders the resources they need to bring peace and safety to our Nation's streets and neighborhoods.