Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I know that each of us wants to do everything we can to help our first responders--the men and women who are called to duty as a result of a Federal action. Well, one of the areas where our local people have just been left out to dry all through of the years--this is not a partisan issue, whether in a Democratic administration or a Republican one--is that they have to pay the costs of security details when a leader comes into the State, be it a domestic leader like the President, a Presidential candidate, the Vice President, or their families, or a foreign dignitary. It is really critical, it seems to me, particularly in light of the rough economic times that our States are seeing, that we begin to address this issue. I was a little stunned when I got into this after a constituent talked to me about this. I was stunned to learn that there is really no place in the Federal Government where we have this information. The Secret Service does its job brilliantly. They don't worry about the cost to the local people. They call up the local people and say that a Cabinet Secretary is coming, or a foreign dignitary, or the President, or a candidate, and this is what they need. They need A to Z and they lay it out. Guess what. The cost is borne by our local agencies at home. So simply, my amendment requests a report from the Department of Homeland Security on expenses incurred by local police as a result of Secret Service requirements. We all know, when there is an orange alert, what happens in our hometowns, because we also know when there is an orange alert--that means a heightened state of alert--if there is a problem, people don't call the President or the Senate or the House; they call 911. We know that is what happens. Right now, even in this bill, as far as it goes, I don't think it goes far enough to help our people. Here is a whole other matter that we have never really looked at. As we see that our police departments and fire departments are facing layoffs, it seems to me that we need to do something to help them. As a first step to do that in an area that has never been looked at, I think we ought to look at what happens to the various agencies. I have a very detailed letter from the California Highway Patrol. They detailed all the expenses that they had from 2002 to 2003. I am not going to go into every detail of every hour, and I am not going to put that in the Record because Senator Cochran informed me, through his staff, that the Secret Service doesn't want this to be public information. I find it very odd, frankly. I don't think it should be a classified issue. But if the Secret Service says they need it classified, so it shall be. However, I will tell you that the aggregate cost in that 1 year just for the California Highway Patrol, in 69 different details they were ordered to do, was $700,000. That may not seem like a lot by the standards we face here, but I can assure my colleagues, in my State, every dollar now makes a difference. Sometimes these agencies may get reimbursed, but they usually do not, and the burdens of these requests are adding up. They add up in additional overtime and transportation costs that these agencies cannot afford. We want to know: How big is this number? I think it would be very important for every one of our States because every one of our States hosts these dignitaries and we want to do what is right, and we will do what is right, but let's find out because we do care about these unfunded mandates, what it is costing our people. I am not in any way being critical of the Secret Service. They are doing their job, and they do it extremely well, but they are not acting alone in these cases. They are calling local police. Simply put, we want to find out the costs and the burdens on our States. I have no idea what it would be. I just have this one letter that details one area of costs, and, I might say, it is an off election year. In this election year coming up, we are not only going to have the President, his entourage, his family, and the Vice President, but we are going to have the Democratic nominee and his or her entourage, I have to say, and family. These are major costs. It is not fair to our people not to try to reimburse them for these costs. Again, this amendment will start the ball rolling. In some ways, I wanted to write an amendment that just said our local people should be reimbursed right now for all the expenses they face when Secret Service says to them: You must provide these many cars and these many police and this much protection. But I wanted to lay the groundwork for everyone because, as I say, I think when we get the report back, every one of us will be impacted because at least most of the States are receiving these calls from Secret Service all the time. In my case, for just one agency, it is $700,000 for 1 year, 69 details. I am very pleased both Senators Cochran and Byrd have agreed to have this amendment. We made a couple of changes at the request of Senator Cochran to keep these numbers classified. Again, I have problems with understanding why the aggregate number has to be kept classified. I do not see what anyone learns if they find out an aggregate number. We have an aggregate number for the Secret Service, so I do not know why we cannot have an aggregate number of what the costs are to our States. But that is a fight for another day. We do not have to pursue that at all today. Today, I am very pleased we will take the first steps toward getting this information. I ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment and ask that the amendment be laid aside. At the time Senator Cochran thinks is appropriate, I will be happy to have a vote on it at that time. Is it appropriate, Mr. President, that I ask for the yeas and nays?

Mrs. BOXER. I have completed my statement. I didn't know if the Senator wanted to move along. I would be happy to yield the floor at this time.

Mrs. BOXER. Sure, wonderful.

Mrs. BOXER. Wonderful.

Mrs. BOXER. I have completed my remarks. I wonder if we could just accept the amendment. Then I have one more amendment I would like to speak about 6 or 7 minutes on, and then we could lay that one aside.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I think this amendment is very important in making sure we stay ahead of the threat that the FBI has identified as being very real to our people. I am going to show you what the FBI said about the threat of shoulder-fired missiles. The FBI said that: . . . given al-Qaeda's demonstrated objective to target the U.S. airline industry, its access to U.S. and Russian-made MANPAD systems, and recent apparent targeting of U.S.-led military forces in Saudi Arabia, law enforcement agencies in the United States should remain alert to potential use of

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mrs. BOXER. I make that request.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, is it necessary to lay aside an amendment that is pending so that I can offer an amendment?

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I want to express my support for Sail San Francisco--a nonprofit organization that provides a range of services to visiting international tall ships and training ships. These services, which include docking, technical assistance, and hospitality, were formerly provided by the U.S. Navy in the Bay Area. In the wake of the base closure process, this assistance is no longer available. Over the past several months, Sail San Francisco has coordinated with foreign consulates to facilitate the visit of several foreign navies, playing a valuable role that is filled by the U.S. Navy at other ports throughout the country. It is my hope that when the fiscal year 2004 Defense appropriations bill is considered in conference, it is possible to provide $800,000 for Sail San Francisco's naval/tall ships education programs.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I want to express my support for Sail San Francisco, a nonprofit organization that provides a range of services to visiting international tall ships and training ships. These services, which include docking, technical assistance and hospitality, were formerly provided by the U.S. Navy in the Bay Area. In the wake of the base closure process, this assistance is no longer available. Over the past several months, Sail San Francisco has coordinated with foreign consulates to facilitate the visit of several foreign navies, playing a valuable role that is filled by the U.S. Navy at other ports throughout the country. It is my hope that when the fiscal year 2004 Defense Appropriations bill is considered in conference, it is possible to provide $800,000 for Sail Francisco's naval/tall ships education programs.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I have been working on an amendment that I trust would get support from both sides of the aisle, and I would like, at this time, to send this amendment to the desk and ask unanimous consent that the previous amendment be laid aside.

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mrs. BOXER. Thank you very much, Madam President. And I am glad the clerk was able to read this amendment because I think it is a very straightforward amendment, not one of those that is convoluted. Essentially, my amendment is an assurance that the American people will receive the full and accurate costs relating to the operations in Iraq; will know more about the monthly costs therein; will know more about the contribution of our coalition of the willing and other nations that may come in, both in terms of their support of military personnel and their monetary support, and other support; and also will have detailed reports on the casualties. This is a very important amendment because, quite frankly, as a member of the Foreign Relations Committee myself, we do not have the information we need. I am going to attempt to prove that as I go through my points. Basically, the amendment would require that each month--every 30 days--the Secretary of Defense send a report to the congressional committees with specific information. You have heard that information read by the clerk, so I will not go into that until my summary. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Landrieu and Murray be added as cosponsors to the amendment.

Mrs. BOXER. If anything that happens in the Senate means anything at all, if we are not just spinning our wheels when we have committee hearings, we ought to learn what to do when things are not going right. I suggest things are not going right when a man as intelligent as Secretary Rumsfeld cannot answer a simple question like what it is costing us every single month. We have found out from the Department of Defense Comptroller that the cost of U.S. operations in Iraq has cost $48 billion thus far. The cost per month is $4 billion, not what Senator Byrd thought, 1.3 or 1.4; it is $4 billion. And given that we are going to be in Iraq for years, not months, according to everyone, how does the administration propose we pay for this, given the tax cuts they have created, deficits as far as the eye can see, and the international community has pledged only $1.7 billion so far, and it is costing us $4 billion a month? Sometimes it is hard for my constituents--to understand these dollars. What I have done today in a handmade chart--forgive me, it is not the most beautiful-looking chart, but I think it says it all--is ask, how do we know exactly what $45 billion a year is that we are now currently spending on Iraq? I thought I would take a look at selected issues that we care about in the Senate in a bipartisan way and tell the people of this country, as well as remind my colleagues what we are spending on these things compared to $45 billion a year in Iraq. We spend on the Drug Enforcement Agency--that is the agency that does everything to get the bad guys who are trying to push drugs on our children and interdicting drugs at the border--in a year, $1.6 billion. We are spending $45 billion in Iraq, and we still have people waiting in line to get treatment on demand for their drug habit. We can't take them. We don't have enough money. But we are spending $45 billion in Iraq. On higher education, across party lines, we have worked so hard to make sure we have enough money for education. Let's look at higher education--the kinds of grants and loans we give out to deserving middle-class families so that their kids can get a college education. We spend $23.4 billion on higher education in a year. We are spending $45 billion a year in Iraq. Afterschool programs: I have a special feeling for those because I wrote the law. Senator Ensign, on the other side of the aisle, and I teamed up on that one. We are spending $1 billion a year on afterschool programs, and we have thousands and thousands and thousands of children on waiting lists whom we cannot accommodate because we don't have the money. But we are spending $45 billion a year in Iraq, and that is before the major reconstruction starts. We are all talking about Head Start. The President has a plan to give it back to the States. I oppose that fiercely. This is a program that works for poor families. Be that as it may, whether it is a block grant or a Federal program, we are spending $6.7 billion a year on Head Start. Millions of children are waiting to get in. We are spending $45 billion a year on Iraq. Highways: There isn't one Senator in this body who would say their State doesn't need highway funding. We are spending $31.8 billion a year on highways. By the way, that comes from the gas tax our citizens pay. That is less than we are spending for a year in Iraq. NIH, the National Institutes of Health: Again, there is no one I have ever met whose family or friends have not been touched by cancer, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, or heart disease. The bottom line is that we are spending $27.1 billion a year to find cures for these diseases. And we are spending $45 billion a year in Iraq. Veterans' health: These are people who have served this Nation proudly. We have made a commitment to take care of them. We are going to have a whole lot more veterans coming back from this war. We want to meet our commitments. How much do we spend a year on veterans' health? We spend $23.9 billion on all of the veterans' health. We are spending $45 billion a year in Iraq. The Transportation Security Agency: I sit on the Commerce Committee, we know what we have to do to make sure our public is protected from these terrorists who are still in our country. There are declassified reports that say there are tens of thousands in our country. Will they strike again? We are doing everything to make sure the President has the resources he needs. But, bottom line, what are we spending on the TSA to protect the flying public? It is $5.2 billion. There is a lot more we have to do, such as retrofit airplanes so if there is a shoulder-fired missile a terrorist gets hold of and shoots that at a plane, there will be a missile defense system through the technology that is on our military planes. We want them on civilian aircraft. This is a bipartisan issue. We don't have enough money for that. But we are spending $45 billion a year in Iraq. Coast Guard: Again, they are out there protecting us from drugs that are being smuggled, from human cargo that is being smuggled, and looking out for terrorists. That costs $6.1 billion a year. The EPA enforces our laws for clean air, clean water, safe drinking water, and Superfund sites. They are terribly underfunded. The Superfund sites that were to be cleaned up under this administration were cut in half. We don't have the money. As a matter of fact, the ``polluters pay'' is falling on taxpayers, and yet $8.1 billion is all we are spending, compared to $45 billion in Iraq. My last example is the Superfund Program. If anybody has a Superfund site in their State, they know these are highly polluted sites that need to be cleaned up so that there can be economic development on those sites and so that our children and all of our people can be protected from these poisons. That is $1.3 billion, and we are spending $45 billion a year in Iraq. Why did I go through this? Because sometimes people's eyes glaze over when they hear numbers. Mine tend to do that. We have to put this into perspective. We are spending $4 billion a month. Secretary Rumsfeld eventually came up with those numbers later. So we know that is a fact. That is what we are spending. That is $45 billion a year, and we don't come close to spending that on the priorities of the American people. We don't even come close. So why is my amendment important? Because it is going to tell the American people how their taxpayer dollars are being spent in Iraq and how much of a contribution our allies, our friends, are making. It is also going to tell us the details of when people get wounded or killed--how did it happen and why did it happen? We need that information. We need it on behalf of the American people. That is for sure. In closing, again, this is a very straightforward amendment. It is written in plain English. It is very clear. I will close my statement by reading the amendment one more time. I cannot imagine why my friends on the other side would object to this. I hope they don't object. The fact is, the American people deserve to know what is happening to their tax dollars. They don't have to have a situation where someone comes up and Senator Byrd asks a question-- regardless of who it is on either side of the aisle--and says, gee, I don't know. That is not acceptable. Here is how the amendment reads: Not less than once every 30 days, the Secretary of Defense shall submit a report to the Congressional Defense Committee, the House International Relations Committee, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that contains the following information: (a) Total and monthly costs of U.S. operations in Iraq; (b) Number of U.S. military personnel serving in Iraq and the immediate region; (c) Total and monthly contributions made by foreign governments and international organizations in support of U.S. operations in Iraq; (d) Number of foreign military personnel serving in support of U.S. operations in Iraq; (e) Defense articles and services offered by foreign governments and international organizations in support of U.S. operations in Iraq; (f) Total number of U.S. casualties as a result of U.S. operations in Iraq by date and cause; (g) All contracts in excess of $10 million entered into by the U.S. Government for the reconstruction of Iraq. On this last one, as someone who has fought hard to end that sole source contract to Halliburton, I am very worried that this could repeat itself. That sole source contract was worth many billions--at least $7 billion or $8 billion. It didn't go out for bid. It was going to go forward and we stopped it. I thank Senator Warner for teaming up with me to stop it. On August 14, we are supposed to get the follow-on contract. I hope that will happen. I am counting on it. Let us not be sanguine about this whole military procurement situation. I served on the Armed Services Committee for many years on the House side. You turn your back one minute and there is another contract; it didn't go out for a bid, it is costing a fortune, and you wind up with $7,000 coffee pots on airplanes. I have been there and I have seen that. So all contracts in excess of $10 million entered into by the U.S. Government for the reconstruction of Iraq--we will know about that, I say to colleagues. So I think if the Senate has some regard for its own power, its own role in this entire matter, then the Senate will go on record and support this very simple amendment, just asking for information on a monthly basis so we can stay ahead of the curve. With that, Madam President, I finish my statement. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, last August, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, on which I serve, began a series of hearings on U.S. policy toward Iraq, hearings that began under the leadership of Senator Biden, and have continued with our current chairman, Senator Lugar. From the very first hearing, my position on this issue was very clear. I felt if our policy toward Iraq was going to be successful, it should be done in conjunction with our allies and in coordination with international institutions, such as NATO and the United Nations. Why did I feel that way? Because I felt that the burden of this situation should be shared by the world. Surely, the world has something at stake if there is stability in Iraq, and that burden ought to be shared. The fact is, for many different reasons--and I am not going to rehash them--the burden has not been shared. And this situation is very different than the first Persian Gulf war, where George Herbert Walker Bush built a very broad international coalition to share the burdens of war. All we have to do is look at the cost. That is one example. The estimated cost of the first gulf war was $61 billion total. The operation was financed by more than $53 billion pledged by countries around the world, and some of that came in the form of in-kind services that also counted toward the estimate. So our allies picked up roughly 85 percent of the cost of the first gulf war. Our allies also provided a quarter of the military force on the ground. How different is this current situation? We have 146,000 troops in Iraq, and they are dying every day. I have come to the floor to eulogize those who have died who had any connection to California. Let me say, since President Bush declared an end to major hostilities on May 1, 15 of those who were either from California or based in California have been killed. In the total of all those killed, 56 have been from California or based in California. This war is touching the people of my State very deeply. So here are 146,000 troops from our country in Iraq, and the British, our top ally, have 12,000 troops. They certainly have been our deepest friends in this particular situation. They have 12,000 troops. We have 146,000. Poland and Australia have a small number of troops. All these troops are greatly appreciated. But you cannot come close to the type of international coalition that we had in the first Persian Gulf war or, more important, what we need to have today so that the burden does not fall so hard on our families. Last night, I heard a report on CNN about a little child that would just break your heart. He was there with his mom. You never can script a child. This little boy said: I was supposed to have my daddy home, and this is the second time, but the President changed his mind again. Clearly, the President doesn't want to see little kids crying for their parents. No one does. But what it means is we need to internationalize the troops in the field so we do not have to carry this burden. We also need rules and regulations so we keep to our word about the length of the terms served over there, and that is an issue that will come back again. We had a vote on that yesterday. For a moment I rise to talk about the money. In a hearing on July 9 before the Armed Services Committee, Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, was unable to recall the monthly cost of U.S. operations in Iraq. The committee actually had to go into a recess so the Secretary could get the information. This is unacceptable. I have the transcript from that hearing. I am going to read from it. Senator Byrd: Mr. Secretary, what is the current monthly spend rate to support our ongoing military operations in Iraq? Mr. Rumsfeld: I'll have to get you that for the record. It's a combination of appropriating funds, as you know, sir, know better than any, plus the expenditures of funds taking place from Iraqi frozen assets, from Iraqi siezed assets and from U.N.-Iraqi assets under the oil-for-food program. And I can certainly have Dr. Zakheim come up and provide a very precise answer as to what's currently being spent. Senator Byrd: Do you recall a figure? Can you give us an estimate? I've heard the figure of $1.5 billion a month. Secretary Rumsfeld: I would not want to venture a guess and be wrong, sir. Senator Byrd: Well, somebody ought to know. Secretary Rumsfeld: Well, they do know. We'll be happy to brief you on that. Well, I'd like to know now. Well, we'd have to adjourn . . . Well, OK. Madam President, how do you come before the Armed Services Committee without an estimate of the cost? I don't quite understand it. Secretary Rumsfeld says these expenditures are in a variety of categories, et cetera. This is what Senator Byrd said: I understand that, Mr. Chairman, but I've been around here going on 51 years and I'm on the Appropriations Committee, and we want to fund our military and meet the need. But there must be some figure, some amount that we can cite as an amount that we're spending monthly in Afghanistan and the same with respect to Iraq. Secretary Rumsfeld: I'm sure there is, and we'll get it for you. Senator Byrd: Very well. That'll be another figure we hope to have when we return, Mr. Chairman, I would hope. And Secretary Rumsfeld says: In that case not likely. That fast? Senator Byrd: Well, you like to have figures fast when it comes to appropriating money. Secretary Rumsfeld: That's for sure. Senator Byrd: I would [like to] know, on behalf of the Appropriations Committee and the Congress, how much we're spending. Secretary Rumsfeld: We'll try and get it for you. Then Senator Byrd says: Well, anyhow, so much for that . . . I ask unanimous consent to print these conversations in the Record.

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, it is a sad day when one Senator will rename an amendment of another Senator who simply wants to know what it is costing my taxpayers every single day. If the Senator is right and this has already been done, he did not complain about it then. He did not stand up and say: We want this report, but, gee, we should not have it because it is too much work. The bottom line is, I have seen the report to which the Senator refers. It is nine pages, and it is estimates. It is not costs incurred. I have asked as recently as today to find out the contribution of other countries, and I have asked it of people in very high-up positions, and they do not have the answer. Senator Cochran talks about the news: The news knows this; just turn on CNN, they know it. That is not what I was sent here to do, watch CNN. I do not want to give up my power of the purse to CNN or to Fox News or to MSNBC. He talked a long time about the press. If I wanted to be a reporter, I would have stayed a reporter. I was a reporter for a while. But people sent me here to get the facts and figures. If the Senator believes it is a waste of time and it is a matter of bookkeeping to find out the total monthly cost of United States operations in Iraq so I can stand up at a townhall meeting and tell the people what it costs--if he thinks that is a waste of time, then I am confused. Why are we here? Why are we bothering? Why are we bothering? If he thinks it is a waste of time to find out how many U.S. personnel are serving in the region, then I am very confused. There was a Presidential candidate who was asked that question, and he said between 100,000 and 200,000. He was right, but he was chastised. Why did he not know it was 146,000? So perhaps the Senator believes it is not important to know in any given month how many people are serving in Iraq. I think it is, because, guess what, they are my constituents. I have lost 50 of them. So I would like to know who is over there. I also would like to know, when one of our Americans dies, the circumstances surrounding that. I want to know what the coalition of the willing is actually doing, not what the Senator talks about, estimates. See, he is talking about a report that talks about estimates. I am talking about what actually has occurred, and what costs have been incurred. The Senator never mentioned the fact that I am going after these contracts. Maybe that is because he does not want to go after them. The fact is we see a contract let to Halliburton, a sole-source noncompetitive bid. What does it cost? It could have cost $9 billion except some of us found out about it, and happily Senator Warner agreed with me and we came together, and this is supposed to be ended. But it could happen tomorrow. So I would call the Senator's position, since he has now characterized my position, the stonewall position. I could throw around charged words, too. I could call his words the cover-up-the-true-costs position. That was not my intent. I do not stand here, after a Senator is sincere, to try and demean what they do. I do not think that is right. But since it was done to me, I say people who do not support this are not interested in knowing the truth, are not interested in getting the facts, are trying to hide something from the American people. Now maybe the Senator feels $45 billion a year is a little bit of money. I do not know where he comes from. Maybe that is a little bit of money. Where I come from, that is a lot. We spend $1.6 billion in all on drug enforcement in this country. We are spending $45 billion, roughly, but the Senator feels we do not have to have some report that basically tells us how it is being spent. He calls it redundant when it is not at all redundant, because it is not about estimates, which is the report he is talking about, but it is about actual costs incurred. One thing I thought we could come together on in this Senate is the people's right to know how their money is being spent, and the people's right to know, if troops are lost, what are the conditions, why did it happen, and the people's right to know who is sharing the burden of these costs. I have spoken to families who have heard from their loved ones that our people over there are more scared now than they were during the hot war, where they performed so brilliantly. I am hearing the words ``sitting ducks'' used now. It is not a happy situation. We have to work to bring down the burden on our troops, and the financial burden on our people, and we could do that with leadership. At least the Senate ought to know the true costs, not the estimated costs. What I am talking about is accountability, and anyone can stand up and say it is redundant, but the fact is it is far from redundant because I saw the report my friend talks about and it has nothing to do with this. It is about estimates and projections. This is about reality. So I hope that notwithstanding the opposition I have heard today, which I think frankly is couched in a way which was not fair, that my colleagues will vote for this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am introducing the California Affordable Quantity and Quality Water Act of 2003, CAL-AQQWA. Nowhere is the need for a comprehensive water policy that includes innovative recycling and reuse principles more urgently felt than in California. Water agencies and elected officials throughout the State are constantly planning, and struggling, to balance California's agricultural, municipal, industrial and environmental water needs. This challenge becomes all the more acute in the face of the State's declining Colorado River surplus allocation and growing population. California is facing an annual loss of about 800,000 acre feet from the Colorado River. And population forecasts project an additional 15 million residents in California over the next 20 years. Unfortunately, funding to pursue and implement much-needed, environmentally beneficial water infrastructure projects is not readily available, and many good water management ideas are left languishing on the shelf. CAL-AQQWA can help move many of these ideas forward and into production. There are two sections in this bill. The first section authorizes expedited feasibility studies for 22 water projects in California. Funding priority would be given to projects that would provide environmental and other benefits. Costs for these studies would be shared between the local sponsors and the Federal Government. Studies in this bill explore a variety of innovative water supply strategies, including groundwater recharge; recycled water distribution for landscaping, wetlands restoration, agricultural use, industrial use, and general irrigation; surface water storage alternatives; groundwater storage; desalination; conservation; and groundwater demineralization. If fully implemented, these water projects may provide up to 630,000 acre feet of water per year in California. These additional acre feet would allow local authorities to decrease their dependence on imported water sources. The second section of this bill increases funding for the Environmental Protection Agency's Conservation Grant programs, including $2 billion in fiscal year 2004 for the drinking water state revolving loan program. EPA conservation grants provide funding for measures that include: urban conservation, low-flow toilets, water meter installation or retrofit, desalination projects, wastewater treatment system upgrades for compliance with Clean Water Act requirements, and groundwater recharge facilities projects. Water agencies and local officials throughout California are constantly struggling to meet all of our state's water needs. My hope is that this legislation will bring us closer to meeting the challenges facing our growing population by studying and expanding the proven benefits of water conservation and recycling. Let me conclude by noting that seven of the studies in the bill would be conducted by the Army Corps of Engineers. I support moving forward with additional Corps studies. But I also recognize we need to reform the Corps. As part of any reform effort for the Corps, I would like to see that costly or controversial Corps projects be subject to independent review; that any environmental harm caused by Corps projects be fully mitigated in a timely manner; that the public will have access to the information necessary to fully participate in the Corps' planning process; that the Corps' procedures for determining project costs and benefits will be modernized; and that Corps projects will be designed and operated in a manner that protects our precious natural resources. I encourage my colleagues to take a close look at this bill, and I ask for their support.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise today to tell you of two of my constituents from Merced, CA. I recently met with both of them and learned how the availability of home hospice and home health care in their homes improved their lives. I had the opportunity to visit Carmel Flinders, a 93-year-old retired teacher with an engaging personality and a voracious appetite for reading books who lives at her home in Merced. On Christmas Eve, she was preparing for a large family gathering and unfortunately broke her hip and had to be rushed to Sacramento for surgery. Thanks to home health care paid for by Medicare, Carmel was able to return home and resume her life, supported by home health care workers and family members. She had the help of Rigo Mayoral, a caring physical therapist, who works for California Home Care and Hospice. She also benefitted from the assistance of Kim Holmes, a gifted nurse recently named Home Health Nurse of the year. It was inspiring to meet Carmel Flinders and the health care workers who have contributed to her strong recovery. Americo Martignoni, and his wife, Eleanor, lived in the lovely home that they built more than 40 years ago. Americo was a retired farmer and veteran who was able to live at home with hospice care for the last 11 months. He was visited every week by Kerry Cheek, a licensed vocational nurse, and also assisted by Kaye Moyer, a certified home health aide. A lung cancer patient, with an indomitable spirit, Americo loved Eleanor's polenta and her legendary biscotti. These special people have a wonderful and supportive family of which they are so proud. Home hospice care, paid through Medicare, improved their lives while saving dollars. Mr. Martignoni died on July 7th at his home. He was a remarkable man and I extend my deepest condolences to his wife Eleanor and his family. Medicare will soon celebrate its 38th birthday. It is gratifying to see this program at work, making a difference in the lives of my constituents. I saw the importance of this program through the eyes of two remarkable Americans, Carmel Flinders and Americo Martignoni.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am introducing the California Affordable Quantity and Quality Water Act of 2003, CAL-AQQWA. Nowhere is the need for a comprehensive water policy that includes innovative recycling and reuse principles more urgently felt than in California. Water agencies and elected officials throughout the State are constantly planning, and struggling, to balance California's agricultural, municipal, industrial and environmental water needs. This challenge becomes all the more acute in the face of the State's declining Colorado River surplus allocation and growing population. California is facing an annual loss of about 800,000 acre feet from the Colorado River. And population forecasts project an additional 15 million residents in California over the next 20 years. Unfortunately, funding to pursue and implement much-needed, environmentally beneficial water infrastructure projects is not readily available, and many good water management ideas are left languishing on the shelf. CAL-AQQWA can help move many of these ideas forward and into production. There are two sections in this bill. The first section authorizes expedited feasibility studies for 22 water projects in California. Funding priority would be given to projects that would provide environmental and other benefits. Costs for these studies would be shared between the local sponsors and the Federal Government. Studies in this bill explore a variety of innovative water supply strategies, including groundwater recharge; recycled water distribution for landscaping, wetlands restoration, agricultural use, industrial use, and general irrigation; surface water storage alternatives; groundwater storage; desalination; conservation; and groundwater demineralization. If fully implemented, these water projects may provide up to 630,000 acre feet of water per year in California. These additional acre feet would allow local authorities to decrease their dependence on imported water sources. The second section of this bill increases funding for the Environmental Protection Agency's Conservation Grant programs, including $2 billion in fiscal year 2004 for the drinking water state revolving loan program. EPA conservation grants provide funding for measures that include: urban conservation, low-flow toilets, water meter installation or retrofit, desalination projects, wastewater treatment system upgrades for compliance with Clean Water Act requirements, and groundwater recharge facilities projects. Water agencies and local officials throughout California are constantly struggling to meet all of our state's water needs. My hope is that this legislation will bring us closer to meeting the challenges facing our growing population by studying and expanding the proven benefits of water conservation and recycling. Let me conclude by noting that seven of the studies in the bill would be conducted by the Army Corps of Engineers. I support moving forward with additional Corps studies. But I also recognize we need to reform the Corps. As part of any reform effort for the Corps, I would like to see that costly or controversial Corps projects be subject to independent review; that any environmental harm caused by Corps projects be fully mitigated in a timely manner; that the public will have access to the information necessary to fully participate in the Corps' planning process; that the Corps' procedures for determining project costs and benefits will be modernized; and that Corps projects will be designed and operated in a manner that protects our precious natural resources. I encourage my colleagues to take a close look at this bill, and I ask for their support.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I support the amendment offered by Senator Byrd to assure that the deployments of National Guard and Reservists do not exceed 180 days. The amendment further mandates that Guard and Reservists are not deployed more than once in a 60-day period. As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I asked many questions of the administration as it made its case for war. Two of the questions that were never answered involved the length of our deployment and the ability of the international community to share the burden of rebuilding Iraq. Because of the failure of the administration to answer these questions, some of our troops face the possibility of spending more time than expected in Iraq. Our Guard and Reservists have fought bravely. We have to see that they are rotated home and replaced with other troops on a timely basis. I want to read part of a letter I received from one Californian asking that a Marine Reserve Unit return to the United States: The members of the Marine Reserve unit ANGLICO are important members of our society. They are hard working citizens who contribute to our economy. Their families are feeling the financial strain of their continued and unnecessary absence. These Marines are eager to come home to contribute to the continued success of our surrounding communities. I am asking you to please look into this matter and help facilitate the homecoming of our Marines. Because of security concerns, the DoD was unable to shed any light on when this particular unit was to return home. But it highlights the sacrifice our communities are making to support this action in Iraq. I believe the U.S. should fulfill its duty and provide for the reconstruction of Iraq. However, I call on the President to ask our allies to help share the burden and I ask him to ensure that our Guard and Reservists are rotated out of Iraq on a regular basis.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise to voice my support for AmeriCorps. The $100 million added in the Appropriations Committee for AmeriCorps is vital to continuing the hard work that so many young people around the country are doing today. Stripping this funding out of the bill would leave thousands of AmeriCorps members in my State, and throughout the country, out in the cold. And it will leave communities without the contributions and hard work of thousands. There are nearly 8,000 AmeriCorps volunteers in my State, working in 366 program sites. They are in communities from Anaheim to Westminster, helping children read, restoring our environment, and building homes for the needy. Their contributions to the quality of life in our cities and towns are immeasurable. The additional funding in this bill is desperately needed. Some of my colleagues have argued that bureaucratic blunders by the Corporation for National and Community Service, the agency that runs AmeriCorps, should not be rewarded by giving the program additional funding. We all know, however, that the work of Senators Mikulski and Bond has gone far to correct many of the problems at the corporation. As the accounting reforms continue, AmeriCorps will flourish once again. This $100 million in this bill is a step in that direction. I hope my colleagues will follow the lead of the distinguished chair and ranking member of the VA-HUD subcommittee, and vote to table this amendment.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, it seems that every week we discover additional drinking water sources that have been contaminated with perchlorate. More than 20 million Americans in at least 24 States drink water contaminated with perchlorate, including: Alabama, Arizona, California, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Maryland, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, Washington, and West Virginia. In California alone, drinking water sources for up to 10 million people are contaminated with perchlorate. Perchlorate also contaminates much of the lower Colorado River, the main water source for 20 million people across the Southwest, including much of California, Arizona, and Nevada. Millions more eat produce grown with Colorado River water. We know that perchlorate is the main ingredient in rocket fuel, which accounts for 90 percent of its use. It dissolves readily in many liquids, including water, and moves easily and quickly. There is general agreement that perchlorate is highly toxic and that even at low concentrations perchlorate poses a serious threat to human health, including thyroid cancer and mental and physical retardation. The greatest risks are to pregnant women, newborns, and children. We also know that the Department of Defense (DOD) has long been not only the primary consumer of perchlorate but also intimately involved in its manufacturing. EPA believes that perchlorate may be present wherever rockets or rocket fuel was made--at least 162 sites in 36 States. The California Department of Health Services has detected perchlorate in 292 public groundwater wells, the majority of which are located near facilities operated by the Department of Defense or its contractors. Additional information provided to the Senate by DOD further confirms that perchlorate contamination is potentially widespread and pervasive at military installations. The Defense Department has said that it is not willing to start cleanup of perchlorate until there is a national drinking water standard, but the Environmental Protection Agency indicates that it will further delay finalizing the standard for at least another 2 years. Our military has protected the American people for centuries. For this, we are grateful. DOD must reaffirm that this commitment extends to protecting citizens within the United States from threats to their public health that may arise from critical defense activities. DOD must not adopt a delay strategy while private parties and local communities, such as California's Inland Empire, San Gabriel Valley, and the Sacramento area, adopt costly measures to assure the purity of drinking water supplies. DOD is legally obligated to clean up perchlorate and other hazardous waste contamination at its sites under a variety of State and Federal laws and regulations, including, for example, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (Superfund), the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and State hazardous waste cleanup laws. Communities have already spent millions on priority actions to reduce the threat to Americans--and I urge the Defense Department to do so as well. Perchlorate is a clear and present danger to California's, and the Nation's, public health. We cannot wait any longer to address this threat. DOD needs to get moving and protect our drinking water sooner rather than later.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. As I understand my friend, what has happened is that the President's own budget, instead of giving $3 billion for this effort, which would be $3 billion this year and $3 billion each year for 5 years to meet his commitment, has underfunded his own request and has underfunded where the authorizing bill said this ought to be at $3 billion. Am I correct in saying when the President says he is waiting for Congress to act, essentially his own budget has undercut his commitment? I just want to make sure I understand that what the Senator is doing today is sending a signal to the people of the United States of America, and to the people who are suffering from AIDS worldwide, that this amendment would bring the amount up to the amount that was promised in the President's own authorizing legislation but that he has underfunded in his own budget and that this bill is underfunding. What you are doing is keeping the promise made by the President himself, in correcting what was a terrible mistake, it seems to me, in the fact that this bill, as it currently stands, without my colleague's amendment, underfunds that account for AIDS.