Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I will take it from the top because this is such a crucial amendment. The amendment I am offering with Senator Schumer will provide $30 million that is already in the bill--we are not adding new money--for the Department of Homeland Security to research and develop and to initially deploy countermeasure systems for commercial aircraft to combat the threat of manned portable shoulder-launched missile systems. I have held one of these missiles. I am a little person. They are very lightweight. They can be easily used. They have been used in the past. As I say, this $30 million is not new money. I hope, therefore, it will not be opposed on the other side of the aisle. The chairman of the House Aviation Subcommittee, a Republican, said just yesterday that the threat of these shoulder-fired missiles being aimed at a commercial aircraft in the United States or one of our assets abroad ``keeps me up at night.'' This is a Republican chairman of the House Aviation Subcommittee who came into this debate, in his own words, not convinced that we needed to move on this threat. But after a secret briefing--and I was there--said this threat ``keeps me up at night.'' Shoulder-fired missiles, such as the SA-7 and stinger missile, are available on the black market for $25,000 to $80,000 each. Most can be used with very little training and they take just minutes to fire. As I said, I have held one of these missiles in my hand. Almost anybody could do the same and fire one. Nearly 30 guerrilla and terrorist groups are in possession of these weapons, including al-Qaida. We will show a chart of the terrorist groups, the guerrilla groups we believe have these weapons or have access to these weapons: al-Qaida, Hezbollah, Kurdistan Workers Party, the Palestinian Authority, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, the Taliban. It goes all the way down the line. These are the groups that have these missiles and could use them against a commercial aircraft. Al-Qaida has shown it is willing to use these weapons as weapons of terror. They are suspected of targeting U.S. military aircraft in Saudi Arabia last May with an SA-7 missile.

Mrs. BOXER. I thank my friend. And, yes, as soon as we get word, I will ask for a quorum call, and then we will make an agreement on the time. Whether we speak about this for a half hour or 2 days, this is a very important amendment. I think one of the things we learned after 9/11, tragically, is that we have to take warnings very seriously--our intelligence agencies, we, as a Congress, the administration, all of us working together. We know now that there is a threat out there that is very real. We have constructed an amendment that does not add any money to this bill but merely says that out of the funds that have been allotted for homeland defense, that $30 million be made available immediately for research and development of countermeasures that could be taken should a shoulder-fired missile be aimed at a commercial aircraft. I want to read to you the latest statement of the FBI. This is the FBI warning, which really must not go unheeded if we are to do our job: . . . given al-Qaeda's demonstrated objective to target the U.S. airline industry, its access to U.S. and Russian-made MANPAD systems-- MANPAD stands for shoulder fired missiles-- and recent apparent targeting of U.S.-led military forces in Saudi Arabia, law enforcement agencies in the United States should remain alert to the potential use of MANPADs against U.S. aircraft. How clear could this be? If this body turns its back on a threat that our commercial aircraft are facing right now, it would be a very sad day, indeed. I see Senator Schumer has approached the floor. What I will do is ask that a quorum call be put in place so I might discuss with him a timeframe he will need on this amendment we have worked so hard on together. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. BOXER. I absolutely will agree. I am waiting for my coauthor, Chuck Schumer. As soon as we get word as to how much time he would need, yes, we would definitely want to do that.

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I thank the clerk. If my colleague would like to make a statement at this time, I would be happy to yield, without losing my right to the floor.

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

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

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I will vote not to table the Hollings amendment. We still do not know how much the war in Iraq will cost, and we do not know how we will pay for those costs. I have been concerned about the United States shouldering the entire financial burden not only of the ongoing war, but also of the necessary postwar reconstruction. The President has released a list of more than 40 nations that are supporting our effort in Iraq. However, a close look at the nations on that list will show that the overwhelming majority of them are in no position--and have made no commitment--to help pay for the effort. In comparison, during the 1991 gulf war, our allies paid for 88 percent of the costs of the war. We have no such assurance this time. Because of this uncertainty, I believe the Senate should be discussing and debating this issue. That is, discussing and debating how we will meet the costs of the war and the costs of reconstruction. Will we receive contributions from our allies? Will we use revenues from Iraqi oil after the war is over? Will we cut wasteful government spending? These questions need to be asked and debated. That is why I voted not to table the Hollings amendment. With his amendment, the Senator from South Carolina tried to raise the issue of how we will pay for the war and reconstruction. And, his amendment was intended to force the Senate to debate this issue. I believe we need to have that debate, and that is why I voted not to table the Hollings amendment.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, 2 weeks ago Ambassador Wendy Chamberlain of the U.S. Agency for International Development testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that there is as little as a 1-month supply of food available to Iraqi citizens. I am told that the administration has had informal discussions with the Appropriations Committee on how they plan to spend the $2.4 billion in the supplemental for the Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund. After hearing about these consultations with the administration, I am very concerned to learn that there is virtually no new money in this bill for food aid. Rather, the money that is being requested will be used primarily to reimburse funds that were already borrowed from other fiscal year 2003 foreign operation accounts to pay for food aid or to pay for logistics and distribution. The good news is that the Senate may be working to increase the amount of food aid in this bill and the House version of the supplemental appropriates funds for food aid. With this food aid, we have a chance to help not only the Iraqi people, but also America's farmers. Many of America's farmers are experiencing a surplus of commodities that could provide valuable nutrition to the Iraqi people while alleviating potential crop losses for our Nation's farmers. Our high quality food products such as rice, beans, raisings, dates, dried fruit and other relatively nonperishable items are familiar foods in that region of the world and would be appropriate for inclusion in our relief supplies. I am wondering if the chairman and ranking member of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee could tell me if this additional food aid funding can be used to purchase surplus agricultural commodities, which would both help feed the Iraqi people and benefit American farmers?

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, first, let me thank Senator Schumer for offering this amendment to immediately provide more resources to our local first responders. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this amendment. This amendment is vital to our first responders at the State and local levels of government. We must increase the resources available so that our police, firefighters, and other emergency personnel can help prevent and respond to terrorist acts. This amendment makes $2.2 billion available to the Office for Domestic Preparedness in the Department of Homeland Security. This $2.2 billion is for direct grants to States and local governments. This funding will be passed to the States, and then on to local governments within 45 days. This expediency is an important concern of many States, including my State of California. We have all heard about the budget shortages that many States are facing. These budget shortages then affect cities and counties. My State of California is facing a budget shortfall of between $26 and $35 billion. In California, revenue from vehicle license fees helps communities pay for the equivalent of 12,000 police officers or 15,000 firefighters for one year. But, because of the State shortfall, this funding may not be passed on to local communities. Already, the financial crunch is taking its toll. For example, the city of Marysville faces a $700,000 budget shortfall. This shortfall will affect the police payroll, which accounts for 60 percent of the city's budget. The cities of Santa Cruz, and Napa have also made cuts in police and fire departments. This amendment will assist cities like Marysville, Santa Cruz and Napa to have full teams of first responders. On top of this budget crunch, the Federal Government has handed additional responsibilities and a heightened terror alert to already troubled State and local governments. The states are paying for security costs that the Federal Government has asked them to cover. In California, the Governor estimates $500 million in statewide homeland defense costs for the State and local governments. These estimates are probably low, especially if the war in Iraq goes on for several months. The city of Los Angeles spent an additional $4.2 million just during the 20 days of code orange to meet the demands of heightened security. The city of Fresno is spending between $15,000 and $20,000 per week on homeland security costs. On average, the city of San Francisco is spending $2.3 million per week, second only to New York City. In fact, of the five cities nationwide that are spending the most money on protecting the homeland, two of them--San Francisco and Los Angeles-- are in my State. This amendment is vital for our communities, vital for our local police, vital for our local firefighters, vital for the protection of the American people. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mrs. BOXER. I thank my colleagues.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am pleased to co-sponsor the port security amendment offered by Senator Hollings. In the wake of the terrorist attacks on September 11, ports are struggling with an entirely new set of challenges to protect ports, citizens and the economy from the possible threat of terrorism. This is a huge task. I was fortunate to be named as a conferee on the port security bill last year. The bill that became law was a good bill. It will greatly improve security at our Nation's port in light of the challenge following September 11. But only if we provide the money. And so far, we have failed to do so. I feared this would happen. Many potential funding options were suggested during the conference. But, all of them were rejected by the other body. So, we had no funding source. We had to rely on appropriations. And, we are not providing enough funding for our local ports. Let me explain why this law is so crucial and why we must fund it with this amendment. The law creates national and regional maritime transportation/port security plans to be approved by the Coast Guard, including better coordination of Federal, State, local, and private enforcement agencies. The law mandates the development of regulations to determine secure areas in ports and to limit access to these areas through background checks that will result in a transportation security identification card. The bill also establishes a grant program for local ports, waterfront facilities operators, and State and local agencies to provide security infrastructure improvements. But again, there's no money. Port Security must be a priority. The Hart-Rudman report was released last October. Their report, ``America Still Unprepared--America Still in Danger,'' discusses the shortcomings in port security. This report recommends making ``trade security a global priority.'' According to the report, 43 percent of all maritime containers that arrived in the United States in 2001 came through the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. The ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach requested $70 million in post-September 11 security grants. To date, they have received only $6.175 million. That's just one port. The American Association of Port Authorities estimates the costs of adequate physical security at the Nation's commercial seaports to be $2 billion. Only $92.3 million in Federal grants have been authorized and approved. We know that last year with the closing of the West Coast ports because of a lockout, the cost to the economy was $1 billion per day for the first five days. Then, the costs increased exponentially. This shows how vital it is for our economy to keep the ports operating. If there was an incident at any port in the country, all the ports would be closed. This would cost billions and billions per day. The Hart-Rudman report also says we need to be proactive. We have identified the threat, but we haven't done enough to protect our ports. This amendment provides $1 billion for port security, including $600 million in grants for local ports. We cannot leave our homeland unprotected against terrorism. This is why I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment to add more funding for port security.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I will continue until 10.

Mrs. BOXER. Is it the understanding, further making a parliamentary inquiry, that the Democrats have until 10 or is that not determined?

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, Senator Lincoln has been coming here every morning on behalf of the Democratic side of the aisle, and I know Senator Hutchison and others have come on behalf of the Republican side. Senator Lincoln asked me to come down here to pay tribute to our young men and women. It is an honor for me to do this. Very sadly, this morning I come down to pay tribute to five young Americans who were killed in the Iraqi war, all of them from California or based in California. I have done this before. We have lost an additional 10 to whom I have payed tribute already, and that is a very large proportion of those who have been lost. As we pray for all of those in harm's way, I think it is important to put a human face on war, and therefore I come down to discuss the great loss we feel in our State. First is Navy Hospital Corpsman Third Class Michael Vann Johnson, Jr., age 25, killed on Tuesday, March 25, in Iraq, while attending to injured marines. He was assigned to the Naval Medical Center, 3rd Marine Division Detachment, in San Diego, CA. Michael was born and raised in Arkansas and graduated from Parkview High School in Little Rock. He attended the University of Central Arkansas in Conway before joining the Navy in 1997. He is survived by his wife in San Diego, his parents, and his seven siblings. I send them my deepest condolences. MAJ Kevin Nave, age 36, was killed March 26, in a vehicle accident in Iraq, assigned to the 3rd Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, Camp Pendleton, CA. His wife and his two children live in Oceanside, CA. He is from Union Lake, MI. He was on the football team and wrestling squad at Waterford Kettering High School in White Lake Township, MI. LCpl William W. White, age 24, was killed in a vehicle accident on March 29, in Iraq. He was assigned to the 3rd Amphibious Assault Battalion, 1st Marine Division, Camp Pendleton, CA. He was from Brooklyn, NY. GySgt Joseph Menusa, age 33, from San Jose, CA, died on Thursday, March 27, from a gunshot wound. He was assigned to the 1st Combat Engineer Battalion, 1st Marine Division, Camp Pendleton, CA. He was born in the Philippines and moved to San Jose when he was just 10 years old. He served in the 1991 gulf war and was a marine recruiter in the San Francisco Bay area. His wife and his young son live at Camp Pendleton. LCpl Jesus A. Suarez Del Solar, age 20, died Thursday, March 27, in combat action in Iraq. He is from Escondido, CA. He was assigned to the 1st Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion, 1st Marine Division, Camp Pendleton, CA. He moved from Mexico to the United States in the late 1990s with his family. He attended San Pasqual High School in Escondido and graduated from Escondido's Valley High School in 2001. He is survived by his wife and his 1-year-old son, as well as many family members in Los Angeles County, San Diego, and Mexico. As I said, I have already read the names of 10 others into the Congressional Record: CPL Randal Kent Rosacker, age 21; LT Thomas Mullen Adams, age 27; CAPT Ryan Beaupre, age 30; 2LT Therrel Shane Childers, age 30; LCpl Jose Gutierrez, age 22; CPL Brian Matthew Kennedy, age 25; SSG Kendall Watersbey, age 29; SGT Michael Bitz, age 31; CPL Jose Garibay, age 21; CPL Jorge Gonzalez, age 20. So, Madam President, out of the 43 who were killed, 15 were from or based in the State of California. And my State mourns them. May these beautiful young Americans rest in peace. And may the war end soon. I pray for the wisdom of those who send these young men and women on their mission. The people of my State feel very strongly on both sides about this war. I say to them today that they have every right to express themselves for and against this war; that those are indeed the freedoms that are the basis of our Nation. I also say to both sides that however one feels about the policy of this war--people know how I felt--I voted for the Levin resolution because I did not want us to go it alone, or virtually alone, because I was fearful of what could happen; and I felt it was important to lead the world as a superpower. Whether you are for or against this war, this isn't about who loves the troops more. These troops are our children. I am a mother. I am a grandmother. These troops are our children. Some of them are parents themselves. So let us not deal with who loves our young people more. The debate is about policy, and there will be much time to debate that policy as there was before this war. And anyone who has a feeling about that policy has a right--I would say a duty--to express that view regardless of what that view is because that is what makes our country strong, that is what makes us different from other places. So that is my message to the people of my State: to respect each other's differences. This isn't a debate about who loves the troops more; it is about policy. California is contributing mightily to the military effort in Iraq. I have read you the names of many who have died so far. Tens of thousands of military men and women have been deployed from my State. One of them, Patrick Sailors, is a chief warrant officer in the Marine Reserves, and he is the brother of one of my most treasured staff members, Kelly Gill, who works out of my Fresno office. He is a member of the Marine Wing Communications Squadron 48, attached to the 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force that is now in Iraq. Chief Warrant Officer Sailors has spent 17 years in the Marine Corps and is a second-generation marine. His wife Liz and their two children are awaiting his return to their home in Galt, CA. His parents, Delbert and Carol Sailors, live in California as well. I pray that Patrick Sailors and all of our men and women are safely returned to their families as soon as possible. Madam President, one of the things I have noticed--I am sure you have noticed--is that many of those who are losing their lives are parents. Before the vote on the resolution giving the President the authority to go to war without U.N. backing, I had a conversation with one of the most treasured Members of this body who had fought in World War II. He pointed out to me that so many of our people who are over in Iraq are members of the Reserves and the Guard. They have families. They have children. They have spouses. I am very concerned about those families and about the children of those dual-military families. I am very concerned about deploying a mother and a father into a combat zone at the same time. Two weeks ago I introduced S. 687 which would prohibit the concurrent deployment of both parents with minor children to a combat zone. I hope my colleagues will join me in this legislation. In discussing education legislation back home, it has come to my attention that in school districts where there is a heavy population of military families, they are finding that the young children there are crying out for help during this time. Impact aid is something that we give to these areas to help them meet the needs of those families. Clearly, they need this help at this time. There are two ways to help: One is to push forward with impact aid--I hope we will do that--and, secondly, to help me with this legislation which would say that two parents of a minor child cannot go to a combat zone at the same time. Last week there was an editorial in the Washington Post entitled ``Mothers at War.'' The editorial calls on the Department of Defense to consider staggering the deployment of two parents so the impact on children is minimized. That is exactly what my legislation does. I hope I will get help with it. It is a horror to lose one parent in a war and one that one never, ever gets over. To lose two parents in such a circumstance would be beyond devastation. The Department of Defense should work to ensure that the children of dual military families never have to suffer seeing both parents sent off to a combat zone at the same time. This is an issue whose time has come. I ask, what is the order at this time?

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

Mrs. BOXER. I wanted to make sure I was functioning under the rules. It is very important that we have a chance to pay tribute to the young men and women who are out there. The debate over what the expectations were in this war will go on for many weeks and months and years. I am not here to debate that. What I am here to say is that when all of us said that war is a last resort--and that was stated by everyone--I think we see daily why we said that. We see daily why we have to try everything short of war that we can. In my own history in the Senate, I have voted to go to war twice. I voted not to go twice. Each of us in our own mind makes this decision. Of course, our voters will decide whether we were correct or not. But regardless of the policy fights, what we have to continually remember, every single minute, is that we have our sons and daughters over there right now. Unlike other wars, many of them are parents. So the tragedy of losing them cuts deeper and deeper than were they not, because the tragedy cuts to the parents and the grandparents and to the spouses and to the children. And for a child to really never know their father or mother cuts very deep. I pray that this war ends soon. I pray that we don't see more of these deaths and casualties and POWs. I pray that the POWs are treated right--they must be treated right according to the Geneva Conventions-- that we find out more about them and that the Red Cross can get in there and see that they are OK. I pray that we won't see casualties to innocent children and women. I pray for a lot. Today I pay tribute to my Californians who will never come back and see our beautiful State. I hope I won't have to come here in the days and weeks to come with more names. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill that will protect hundreds of thousands of acres of wilderness in Northern California. The Northern California Coastal Wild Heritage Wilderness Act would designate 295,410 acres in 14 areas as Federal wilderness and would protect 24.4 miles of the Black Butte Creek. California's natural treasures have always been one of the things that make California unique, drawing millions of people to them over the years to revel in their wild beauty. But that beauty must not be taken for granted. That is why I introduced the California Wild Heritage Act during the 107th Congress and will soon be reintroducing it. It was the first statewide wilderness bill for California since 1984. The California Wild Heritage Act would protect more than 2.5 million acres of public land, as well as the free-flowing portions of 22 rivers. Every acre of wild land is a treasure, but the areas protected in this bill are some of California's most precious. I was thrilled that the 107th Congress passed legislation to designate over 56,000 acres of my statewide bill, lands in the Los Padres National Forest, as wilderness. It was a wonderful first step. While I look forward to passage of the entire statewide bill, it is important that we move now to designate these special places as California wilderness areas. That is why today I am pleased to be joining Representative Mike Thompson of California in introducing legislation that contains the portions of my bill in five counties in California's First Congressional District. Let me mention a couple of examples. In southwestern Humboldt and northwestern Mendocino counties, 41,100 acres of the King Range will be protected as wilderness. This is the wildest portion of the California coast, boasting the longest stretch of undeveloped coastline in the United States outside of Alaska. This bill also protects 24.4 miles of the Black Butte Creek as a wild and scenic river. Black Butte Creek is so wild it is only crossed by one road for its entire length. This bill would also protect the precious plant and animal species that make their homes in these areas. Endangered and threatened species whose habitats will be protected by this bill include the California brown pelican, steelhead trout, coho salmon, bald eagle, peregrine falcon, northern spotted owl, and Roosevelt elk. For every Californian, there is currently less than half an acre of wilderness set aside. This is too little. During the last 20 years, 675,000 acres of unprotected wilderness--approximately the size of Yosemite National Park--lost their wilderness character due to activities such as logging and mining. As our population increases, and California becomes home to almost 50 million people by the middle of the century, these development pressures are going to skyrocket. If we fail to act now, there simply will not be any wild lands or wild rivers left to protect. Those of us who live in the United States have a very special responsibility to protect our natural heritage. Past generations have done it. They have left us with the wonderful and amazing gifts of Yosemite, Big Sur and Joshua Tree. These are places that Americans cannot imagine living without. Now it is our turn to protect this legacy for future generations--for our children's children, and their children. This bill is a start.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill that will protect hundreds of thousands of acres of wilderness in Northern California. The Northern California Coastal Wild Heritage Wilderness Act would designate 295,410 acres in 14 areas as Federal wilderness and would protect 24.4 miles of the Black Butte Creek. California's natural treasures have always been one of the things that make California unique, drawing millions of people to them over the years to revel in their wild beauty. But that beauty must not be taken for granted. That is why I introduced the California Wild Heritage Act during the 107th Congress and will soon be reintroducing it. It was the first statewide wilderness bill for California since 1984. The California Wild Heritage Act would protect more than 2.5 million acres of public land, as well as the free-flowing portions of 22 rivers. Every acre of wild land is a treasure, but the areas protected in this bill are some of California's most precious. I was thrilled that the 107th Congress passed legislation to designate over 56,000 acres of my statewide bill, lands in the Los Padres National Forest, as wilderness. It was a wonderful first step. While I look forward to passage of the entire statewide bill, it is important that we move now to designate these special places as California wilderness areas. That is why today I am pleased to be joining Representative Mike Thompson of California in introducing legislation that contains the portions of my bill in five counties in California's First Congressional District. Let me mention a couple of examples. In southwestern Humboldt and northwestern Mendocino counties, 41,100 acres of the King Range will be protected as wilderness. This is the wildest portion of the California coast, boasting the longest stretch of undeveloped coastline in the United States outside of Alaska. This bill also protects 24.4 miles of the Black Butte Creek as a wild and scenic river. Black Butte Creek is so wild it is only crossed by one road for its entire length. This bill would also protect the precious plant and animal species that make their homes in these areas. Endangered and threatened species whose habitats will be protected by this bill include the California brown pelican, steelhead trout, coho salmon, bald eagle, peregrine falcon, northern spotted owl, and Roosevelt elk. For every Californian, there is currently less than half an acre of wilderness set aside. This is too little. During the last 20 years, 675,000 acres of unprotected wilderness--approximately the size of Yosemite National Park--lost their wilderness character due to activities such as logging and mining. As our population increases, and California becomes home to almost 50 million people by the middle of the century, these development pressures are going to skyrocket. If we fail to act now, there simply will not be any wild lands or wild rivers left to protect. Those of us who live in the United States have a very special responsibility to protect our natural heritage. Past generations have done it. They have left us with the wonderful and amazing gifts of Yosemite, Big Sur and Joshua Tree. These are places that Americans cannot imagine living without. Now it is our turn to protect this legacy for future generations--for our children's children, and their children. This bill is a start.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 383. I ask unanimous consent to modify it.

Mrs. BOXER. I ask for a vote on the amendment.

Mrs. BOXER. I thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for agreeing to this sense-of-the-Senate amendment. I will be very brief in explaining it. The budget before us assumes a cut of 40 percent in afterschool programs. This is a program that both sides of the aisle have been very involved in crafting, watching the number of children grow in the program. We know from the FBI the greatest number of juvenile crimes occur after school. We also know mentoring is working in these afterschool programs. We do not want to see 570,000 kids kicked out of the valuable program, so this sense of the Senate simply is actually a plea that it not occur, and at the minimum we provide afterschool slots for the current number of children who are in those programs right now, 1.4 million children. I ask at this time the amendment be unanimously agreed to.

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 383 having to do with afterschool activities and ask unanimous consent to modify my amendment, deleting finding No. 5 in the amendment.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, released documents substantiating evidence of market manipulation during the California electricity crisis. At the same time, I am stunned that FERC took no action today on ordering the companies that cheated California to pay refunds. Nor did FERC order renegotiation of the long-term electricity contracts that were entered into when prices were artificially inflated. The documents released provide absolute and irrefutable evidence of market manipulation by power generators and wholesale traders during California's electricity crisis. I believe it is long past due to end the discussions and deliberations and time to start sending the refund checks. FERC should use its authority to order full refunds and order them immediately. To make sure that happens, I am introducing legislation to guarantee that the people of California get back the money they are owed. When the crisis first began in 2000, I introduced my first bill to order refunds. The bill that I am introducing today would require energy companies to pay full refunds in the minimum amount of $8.9 billion. In addition, my bill requires the FERC to order the renegotiation of long-term contracts. I ask my colleagues to support this legislation. We must not let these companies get away with thievery.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, released documents substantiating evidence of market manipulation during the California electricity crisis. At the same time, I am stunned that FERC took no action today on ordering the companies that cheated California to pay refunds. Nor did FERC order renegotiation of the long-term electricity contracts that were entered into when prices were artificially inflated. The documents released provide absolute and irrefutable evidence of market manipulation by power generators and wholesale traders during California's electricity crisis. I believe it is long past due to end the discussions and deliberations and time to start sending the refund checks. FERC should use its authority to order full refunds and order them immediately. To make sure that happens, I am introducing legislation to guarantee that the people of California get back the money they are owed. When the crisis first began in 2000, I introduced my first bill to order refunds. The bill that I am introducing today would require energy companies to pay full refunds in the minimum amount of $8.9 billion. In addition, my bill requires the FERC to order the renegotiation of long-term contracts. I ask my colleagues to support this legislation. We must not let these companies get away with thievery.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, as we pray for all those who are in harm's way, I rise to pay tribute to a Californian who was killed in the Iraqi war. Marine Corps Cpl Randal Kent Rosacker, age 21, of San Diego, CA, was killed on Sunday, March 23, when he encountered Iraqi troops pretending to surrender. He graduated in 2000 from San Diego's Junipero Serra High School where he was a star baseball player. He joined the Marines at age 18 and was a machine gunner based at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina. He is survived by his wife, his father--a Navy Master Chief at Naval Station Bremerton his mother and two sisters. May this beautiful young American rest in peace. May we have a short war. And may we also pray for the wisdom of those who send our young men and women on their mission.