Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise to speak about an amendment to this bill that would ban certain uses of a chemical that poses serious health risks to the lungs of consumers and workers.

In recent years, scientific evidence has mounted that this chemical, called diacetyl, seriously harms the lungs of workers in the factories making microwave popcorn. It causes an awful disease called ``popcorn lung'' in which the tissue inside of the lungs gets clogged with scar tissue and inflammation, leaving the victims struggling to breathe. There is now evidence that it also may pose risks to consumers.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or CDC, the effects of popcorn lung include:

Popcorn Lung

(Bronchiolitis Obliterans)

The main respiratory symptoms experienced by workers

affected by bronchiolitis obliterans include cough (usually

without phlegm), wheezing, and worsening shortness of breath

on exertion.

The severity of the lung symptoms can range from only a

mild cough to severe cough and shortness of breath on

exertion.

These symptoms typically do not improve when the worker

goes home at the end of the workday or on weekends or

vacations.

Usually these symptoms are gradual in onset and

progressive, but severe symptoms can occur suddenly.

Some workers may experience fever, night sweats, and weight

loss.

Before arriving at a final diagnosis, doctors of affected

workers initially thought that the symptoms might be due to

asthma, chronic bronchitis, emphysema, pneumonia, or smoking.

Last year, Dr. Cecile Rose, the head of environmental and occupational health sciences at National Jewish Medical and Research Center, one of the most respected lung disease hospitals in the country, wrote to the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Food and Drug Administration, EPA, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration regarding the possible risk of popcorn lung for heavy consumers of microwave popcorn as well as for workers.

Dr. Rose informed the agencies that she had a patient ``with significant lung disease whose clinical findings are similar to those described in affected [popcorn lung] workers, but whose only inhalational exposure is as a heavy, daily consumer of butter flavored microwave popcorn.''

Dr. Rose concluded that while we ``cannot be sure'' that heavy inhalation exposure to butter-flavored microwave popcorn caused the patient's popcorn lung, ``we have no other plausible explanation.''

This report by Dr. Rose, a leading lung disease expert, caused a stir in the health community and the public because previously the concern had been focused primarily on the workers, not consumers.

Many of the major manufacturers of microwave popcorn have responded. According to published accounts, four of the leading makers and sellers of microwave popcorn--Con Agra, General Mills, American Pop Corn Company, and Pop Weaver--have said they will stop using diacetyl in their microwave popcorn. Their brands include Jolly Time, Orville Redenbacher, Pop Secret, Act II, and Pop Weaver.

However, there is no enforceable requirement that these or other popcorn makers stop using this chemical in their butter flavoring.

My amendment would simply level the playing field for all microwave popcorn makers, including importers and small manufacturers, by banning the intentional addition of diacetyl to microwave popcorn.

I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, in order to protect Americans from this unnecessary risk. We should be able to regularly enjoy the simple pleasure of watching movies at home and eating a bag of popcorn without having to worry about whether we are harming our lungs.

I ask unanimous consent to have a letter in support of this amendment printed in the Record.

March 5, 2008.

Hon. Barbara Boxer,

Hart Senate Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Dear Senator Boxer: The undersigned consumer organizations

write in support of your amendment to the Consumer Product

Safety Commission Reform Act bill, S. 2663, to ban the use of

the butter-flavoring chemical diacetyl in the production of

microwave popcorn.

Our groups believe that both workers and consumers should

be protected from harmful and even deadly exposure to

diacetyl, a chemical found in thousands of food products

containing added flavorings, including microwave butter-

flavored popcorn.

Exposure to airborne diacetyl has been linked to the

disease bronchiolitis obliterans, also known as ``popcorn

lung.'' Problems with diacetyl first surfaced in 2000. Eight

years later workers have become ill and died from exposure to

this chemical. Last fall, the first case of a consumer

contracting ``popcorn lung'' surfaced. This man developed

lung disease after making microwave popcorn multiple times

every day for a number of years. Further testing indicated

that levels of airborne diacetyl in his home were comparable

to levels found in microwave popcorn facilities where workers

were diagnosed with ``popcorn lung.'' Diacetyl clearly poses

a serious health hazard and must be banned.

We understand that several leading manufacturers of

microwave popcorn have voluntarily pledged to discontinue the

use of diacetyl in their popcorn production. While we are

supportive of these actions, it is essential that Congress

act more formally to ensure that the comprehensive

elimination of the use of this chemical happens immediately.

Your amendment would accomplish this by making the ban on

diacetyl in all microwave popcorn mandatory for all

manufacturers.

Thank you for your support for this important amendment.

Sincerely,

Sally Greenberg,

Executive Director, National Consumers League.

Edmund Mierzwinski,

Consumer Program Director, U.S. Public Interest Research

Group.

Rachel Weintraub,

Director of Product Safety and Senior Counsel, Consumer

Federation of America.

Ellen Bloom,

Director, Federal Policy, Consumers Union.

Ami Gadhia,

Policy Counsel, Consumers Union.

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

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

Mr. President, if I can engage the Senator from Arkansas for a minute to clarify. I do have this amendment that is germane that deals with a chemical that has shown up in microwave popcorn and has proved to be fairly deadly to workers; in one case at least that we know about, in consumers.

I understand we are having a vote in 5 minutes. Would it be amenable if I spoke about this amendment? I believe it is at the desk. The amendment is at the desk. If I could speak about it until it is time to vote. Would that be something you would encourage?

Thank you.

I have the time.

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

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

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

Of course that was my intent, Mr. President. I mean no disrespect in any way.

Amendment No. 4127

I wanted an opportunity to talk about an amendment that I have at the desk. It is germane. It would ban certain uses of a chemical that poses very serious health risks to the lungs of consumers and workers.

In recent years, scientific evidence has mounted that a chemical called diacetyl seriously harms the lungs of workers in factories making microwave popcorn. I am sure you have read about it, because there is a huge list of stories that appeared in the press about doctors linking illnesses to this particular chemical.

Also there is documentation that says that the large popcorn manufacturers have banned this chemical. But we do not have a ban in law, which means it is simply not fair. We have some companies that have banned it, but we have not acted to ban it. I think it is so dangerous. It causes the tissue inside the lungs to get clogged and creates scar tissue and inflammation and it leaves the victim struggling to breathe.

That is the reason Senator Kennedy has teamed up with me on this amendment. The severity of the lung symptoms can range from only a mild cough to a severe cough, shortness of breath. These symptoms do not improve when the worker goes home at the end of the day, and severe symptoms can occur suddenly. The worker may experience fever, night sweats, and weight loss. Doctors were very puzzled, but they finally found a link with this chemical.

I am not going to go on. I have a lot more to say on this. I hope it will not be necessary for us to have an argument about this, since the large companies have already banned it. It seems to me only right that we follow their lead and do so in law. My amendment simply levels the playing field for all microwave popcorn makers, including importers and small manufacturers, by banning this chemical, diacetyl. I urge my colleagues at the appropriate moment to please support this.

I will say to the Senator from Arkansas, Mr. Pryor, if it is possible, I hope this will not be controversial. Perhaps it could be part of the managers' package.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I thank my friend and colleague. I will be brief because the message I have is a pretty straightforward message; that is, it is time for a change in Iraq. It has been a long time coming. We have been there 5 years, longer than we were in World War II, and it is time for a change in Iraq. It is time for a good change. What does that mean? It means that it is time for the Iraqis to stand up and fight for themselves.

We know the violence there continues. We know that 15 percent of that violence is being perpetrated by foreign fighters, al-Qaida, and the rest--85 percent--is Iraqi-on-Iraqi ethnic violence. If the Iraqis are not ready to stop hurting each other and blowing each other up, if they are not ready to give that up, then we need to be ready to start pulling our troops out. It is pretty clear to me after 5 years that all our presence is doing at this point is acting as a recruiting tool for al-Qaida. Because we have this open-ended commitment--some on the other side are talking about 50 to 100 years--there really is not anything on our side to exert that leverage on the Iraqis. They are not fulfilling the benchmarks in the Government that this administration said they had to do.

Here we have a situation where we have now lost 3,972 fighters on our side. Twenty-one percent of those were either born in California or were based in California. 29,275 Americans have been wounded, some of them grievously wounded, many more have traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress. The suicide rate is off the charts.

There is no way out. There is no plan. There never has been a plan. It seems to me this open-ended commitment has to stop, and the Feingold bill essentially says we are going to have a very responsible withdrawal. There is no end date, but we are going to start it within 120 days of enactment of the bill, and we are going to shift the mission so that it continues training Iraqis.

By the way, I don't know if I mentioned this, the taxpayers of our country have paid to train 440,000 Iraqis.

We are spending $10 billion a month. That leads me to my final point of why I wanted this time this afternoon.

We have to start looking at what this is costing us. I say it is time for America. We are shortchanging our children. We need to provide health insurance to many of our children. To provide health insurance to 10 million uninsured children for 5 years would cost us what it costs for 5\1/2\ months in Iraq. To enroll all eligible 3- to 4-year- olds in Head Start for 1 year would cost us 3 months in Iraq. To enroll 2.5 million kids in afterschool programs--and, boy, do I have a feeling for that one because I worked with Senator Ensign to set up the first afterschool program, and it has been shorted. For 7 days in Iraq, we can enroll 2.5 million kids in afterschool programs for 1 year.

What else can I tell you about the funding? We are shortchanging America's workers. We can immediately replace structurally deficient bridges in the United States and create more than 3 million good-paying jobs for 6\1/2\ months of the cost in Iraq. Don't you think our workers deserve it? I do.

We could extend 13 additional weeks of unemployment insurance to the

chronically unemployed workers in high-unemployment States. One month in Iraq.

We could help an additional 1 million families keep their heat on this winter through the LIHEAP program. One day in Iraq, Madam President.

My colleagues come here and they have no end in sight for Iraq. Open checkbook for Iraq. Iraq in the morning, Iraq in the afternoon, Iraq at night, Iraq for 20 years, 50 years, maybe 100 years, as one Senator said. We can't afford it anymore.

OK, let's look at what else we could do. For those people like myself who care about homeland defense, for 6 weeks in Iraq we could ensure full interoperability of all our communication systems. Our firemen could talk to our policemen, who could talk to our sheriffs, who could talk to our hospitals, who could talk to our Red Cross. Six weeks in Iraq. We could provide first responders with 3 million communications devices for 1 month in Iraq. We could provide firefighters with 12 million breathing devices for 1 month in Iraq.

Finally, if you care about America's environment, as I do, and many of the people I represent do, we could extend renewable energy production tax credits for 4 years. We could do those tax cuts for investments in renewables for 3 weeks in Iraq. For less than 3 days we could erase the Superfund backlog. And for less than 1 day we could triple the Energy bill authorization to train green-collar workers.

The American people have got to connect the dots here. We can't take care of our own. We can't take care of our kids. We can't do what we have to do for our workers. We can't do what we have to do for our businesses. We can't do what we have to do for our environment. And the reason is, our priority right now in this government, because of this administration and their friends in Congress, is Iraq in the morning, Iraq at 10 o'clock in the morning, Iraq at noon, Iraq at 5, Iraq at night, and we ignore the needs of our people.

There is a time and a place to say to a country that is independent, after all we have done for it: Enough is enough. We trained 440,000. We put our American lives on the line. Our brave soldiers have done everything asked of them and more. They allowed three elections to be held. They got Saddam Hussein, they got Saddam's family, and they found there were no weapons of mass destruction. They did everything we asked them to do. And the Iraqi Government takes tiny little steps, baby steps forward, while we continue having our soldiers die and get wounded and our taxpayers have an open checkbook.

My people come and say to me: Why can't we do more for our kids? Why can't we do more to protect our environment? Why can't we do more for our workers and our businesses? Why can't we do more to protect our people by investing in homeland security? I am now telling them the truth: Because the money is floating out of here straight to Iraq.

And by the way, a lot of it is not accounted for--$9 billion missing in cash that was sent. The administration shrugs its shoulders: Oh, well, we don't know much about it. Scandals in contracting, embassies that are larger than the U.N. complex. Some of the Iraqi people call it GW's palace. I was in Saddam's palace, and I will tell you something. That was not a happy feeling because that is not something that we want to replicate, huge buildings like that, fancy. How much does it cost? Almost $800 million. It was supposed to cost $592 million. It doesn't matter, it is in Iraq. Open the checkbook and write the checks, says the President, the Vice President, and their friends in Congress, who are coming here and saying: No, no, no, every time we want to finally begin to bring this war to a close.

Well, I have to tell you, I am ready for change, my constituents are ready for a change, and right now the Feingold legislation is responsible because it says we will keep troops there to protect our forces. We will slowly start bringing them home. We will redeploy them and have all the money we need to responsibly do that. And we will go after al-Qaida.

I voted to go to war against Osama bin Laden. What happened to Osama bin Laden dead or alive? Oh, no, this administration turned around, went into Iraq, and as a result, we are not safe. Al-Qaida has reconstituted itself, and we are shortchanging the American people.

I thank Senator Brownback for allowing me to go first, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am proud to rise in support of Senator Feingold's two bills. The first bill requires that the President begin the safe redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq within 120 days. There is no end date for redeployment. It only starts the redeployment. It includes exceptions for missions against al-Qaida, force protection, and training. The second bill requires that the administration provide to Congress a full report outlining a comprehensive global strategy to defeat al-Qaida and its affiliates.

As someone who voted to go get bin Laden after 9/11, I am dismayed that this President has turned away from that mission and put so much into an ill-fated war in Iraq. Senator Feingold is proposing a policy for us that is consistent with common sense and our national security because the war in Iraq has not made us safer. It has made us vulnerable. The war in Iraq has not reduced the influence of al-Qaida. Actually, it has made al-Qaida a hero, unfortunately. It has been seen as one of the best recruiting tools of al-Qaida. I want to get al- Qaida, and that is what Senator Feingold's bills will result in because we will refocus our attention on capturing bin Laden and getting al- Qaida.

We are in a quagmire in Iraq. We are told that quagmire will go on indefinitely. I believe it is undermining our national security. It is undermining our economic security. When I tell you what it is costing, it is a stunning number. It has diverted critical resources from the hunt for Osama bin Laden. He has been at large more than 6 years. And despite the administration's rhetoric, our own intelligence agencies again are telling us that the war in Iraq is proving to be a critical recruitment and fundraising tool for the terrorists we want to beat.

We see a toll on our military. We hear phrases such as a ``death spiral.'' The Washington Post reported that Army and Marine officials refer to the readiness death spiral that senior officers warn puts our Nation at risk. Why? Because we lack the strategic reserve of ground forces to be able to respond to crises throughout the world. This single-minded focus on Iraq and the ever-changing mission there is not making us stronger. It is making us weaker. We now see that suicide attempts among U.S. troops have reached a record high, a sixfold increase since 2002. And while promising junior officers are leaving the military at record rates, we hear that the services are lowering their standards to meet recruitment goals. They are recruiting convicted felons now, people convicted of sex crimes, people convicted of making a false terror threat, assault with a deadly weapon. We are taking felons into the military. This is wrong for our Nation.

Once upon a time we were told that this Iraq war was about weapons of mass destruction that Saddam Hussein was hiding, and it was about also Saddam's ties to al-Qaida. Our military did its job. They found out there weren't weapons of mass destruction, and our intelligence people did their job. They said there were no al-Qaida cells in Iraq at the time of 9/11.

Then we were told the war was about getting rid of Saddam and liberating Iraq from that brutal tyrant. Our military did that. Then we were told the war was about holding elections and promoting democracy. You remember President Bush in his flight suit with big words ``mission accomplished.'' Well, there were many missions accomplished. There were no weapons of mass destruction. There were no ties to al-Qaida. We got Saddam Hussein. We got his relatives. Three elections were held. Our military did every single thing that was asked of them to the point where the President said ``mission accomplished.'' But, no, the troops are there. They are suffering. Believe me, there is no end in sight because I personally asked our Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice how long she, at the time, thought we would be in Iraq. She said she couldn't answer. I said: How much do you think we will have to spend? She couldn't answer. What kind of administration comes forward with a war and has no way out?

Russ Feingold is saying: All right. We won't set an end date. We will change the mission to get our troops out of harm's way. Let them continue to train Iraqis. Let them go after al-Qaida. Let them protect our forces there and our personnel there. But get them out of the business of kicking down doors in Iraq. We have lost so many of these brave men and women, and so many are coming home who will never be the same.

We have this war based on shifting missions. The President said: Mission accomplished. Dick Cheney said we are in the last throes. But it goes on and on under shifting rationales, going on 5 long years. Will it be another 5 years? They will not tell us. Will it be another 10 years? They will not tell us.

Some of this administration's supporters say it will be 50 years. Some say it will be 100 years. How many brave men and women will die in addition to those who have already died? How many will be wounded? There are no answers.

Will we spend $1 trillion? Will we spend $2 trillion, $3 trillion? No answer. The toll is too high already. Thousands dead, tens of thousands injured, $10 billion a month for Iraq.

The Nation's Governors met with the President yesterday. On a bipartisan basis they asked to see increased spending on America's crumbling roads and highways and bridges. They said it would help our struggling economy, and we can't grow economically if we don't have an infrastructure. I am chair of the Public Works Committee of the Senate. My friend, Senator Inhofe, and I do not agree on the war in Iraq, but we certainly agree that we need to have an infrastructure. The President said: No, there is no money. There is only money for Iraq, an open checkbook, $10 billion a month. We can't fix our falling bridges. The $10 billion a month is equivalent to $2.5 billion a week, $357 million a day.

For less than the cost of 3 months in Iraq, we could enroll every eligible child in America in the Head Start program for 1 long year. For the cost of 1 month in Iraq, we could provide afterschool care for our kids for 4 years. For the cost of 2 weeks in Iraq, we could provide health insurance for a year to 6 million uninsured kids. Last year we asked the President to help us with children's health. He said no. He vetoed that critical investment. He just said no to the Governors on rebuilding the roads and highways. Open checkbook for Iraq; closed checkbook for America.

Do you remember when the President's then-Budget Director, Mitch Daniels, told us the war in Iraq would cost no more than $60 billion? He was wrong. Paul Wolfowitz assured us Iraqi revenue would pay for the war. No, we remember there were a couple in the administration who said the war might cost as much as $200 billion. They were ridiculed. The President's most recent supplemental request for Iraq was $200 billion in itself, bigger than the stimulus package we just passed. The President has spent more than a half trillion dollars on his failed policy, and there is literally no end in sight. I think we need to remember this is all borrowed money. The cost of interest on Iraq- related debt is $23 billion a year for fiscal year 2008 alone. The President's policy is being paid for on a credit card, and we are sticking my grandchildren and yours with the tab.

The cost of a barrel of oil has tripled since the war began, much to the benefit of countries such as Russia, Sudan, and Iran. According to the Joint Economic Committee, if you factor in the cost of the oil, the President's policy in Iraq has already cost the average family $416,500, and no end in sight.

It needs to stop. We are hemorrhaging money. The waste in this war is beyond disgraceful. We spent $32 million for a base in Iraq that was never built. We paid a contractor $72 million to build a barracks for the police academy in Baghdad and instead got a building with giant cracks snaking through newly built walls and human waste dripping from the ceiling. That is from a report. The administration loaded $9 billion in cash on to pallets and shipped it into Iraq where it promptly disappeared.

I ask you: Imagine what would happen if $9 billion disappeared from one of our cities. The people responsible would be in prison. But in Iraq, the President shrugs it off.

When the President vetoed the Water Resources Development Act, he said it lacked fiscal discipline. He said it wasn't fiscally responsible. I would ask rhetorically: Not fiscally responsible to maintain our waterways and keep our commerce moving in this, the greatest Nation in the world? This, coming from a President who inherited a budget surplus and turned it into a huge debt, with the largest budget deficits in history as well, and money for Iraq every day, every hour, every minute, no end in sight, billions missing, billions on bases that were never built. It is breathtaking. The President and his supporters shrug it off. They don't even address it. It is unbelievable. The sky is the limit. But when it comes to investing in America or extending the stimulus for seniors and disabled vets, we are told: Sorry, we need to show fiscal discipline. Thank goodness we were able to get that through above the President's objections.

Our own military leaders tell us time and time again there is no military solution. God bless our soldiers. They have given us a breathing space. Yet the Iraqi Government is just making changes around the edges.

We have trained 440,000 Iraqis militarily. Imagine, 440,000 Iraqis. Why can't they defend themselves? Countries defend themselves. We have given so much in blood, in tears, in sweat, in dollars, in commitment, in trust. After the elections last year, I thought the President would come to the table when the Democrats took over and said we wanted to end the war. We thought he would come to the table. We were wrong. He did not come to the table. He is continuing this war, no end in sight, no plan to get out.

When I asked that question to Condoleezza Rice, I was stunned. She said: I can't answer the question of how long we will be there. I can't answer the question of what it will cost--as if I didn't have a right to ask the question. That is why I am sent here.

I represent, along with Senator Feinstein, 37 million people. We have taken a hit on soldiers killed. We have taken a hit on soldiers burned. We have taken a hit on soldiers permanently disabled. So you better know I am going to ask these questions.

Today, Senator Feingold is saying: Let's get started. Let's start telling the Iraqis, by our actions not just our words, that they have to step up to the plate.

We have to make a choice as a nation.

Is it time for America? It is time for our families, for our soldiers, for our children, for our grandchildren?

Or is it time to continue this open-ended commitment to a war without an end, a war that has no plan of ever ending, a war that is tying our hands in this recession?

I say it is time for a change in America. It is time to vote for the Feingold bill and start bringing our troops home.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I take this opportunity to observe the 100th anniversary of the U.S. Army Reserve and to recognize its installations in California that comprise the U.S. Army Combat Support Training Center, CSTC.

Initially established by Congress in 1908 to provide a reserve force of medical officers, today's Army Reserve is a vital operational component in the world's most powerful and sophisticated Army. The Army Reserve provides the specialized skills and manpower the Army depends on and currently assists the Army in locations worldwide, including Iraq, Afghanistan, the Horn of Africa, the Philippines, and Latin America. As a result of their extensive peacetime and wartime accomplishments over the last 100 years, the men and women who have served and continue to volunteer to serve in the U.S. Army Reserve deserve the greatest respect and admiration.

Established in June 2005, CSTC is the Army's newest training center and the first of its kind to serve as a premier training center for Army Reserve soldiers in the Western United States. CSTC provides ranges, training areas, and facilities to prepare and train Army Reserve soldiers and encompasses four geographically separated installations throughout northern and central California: Moffett Field in the city of Mountain View, B.T. Collins Army Reserve Center in the city of Sacramento, Camp Parks in the city of Dublin, and Fort Hunter Liggett in southern Monterey County.

Until 1993, Camp Parks and Fort Hunter Liggett were separate installations under the control of the U.S. Army Reserve Command, USARC. However, in 1995, USARC placed these two posts under Fort McCoy, WI, which in turn developed the original CSTC concept. With headquarters at Camp Parks, which oversees the base operations, training facilities, and housing assets of Fort Hunter Liggett and Camp Parks, the CSTC also provides military housing at Moffett Field and lodging and dining facilities at the B.T. Collins Army Reserve Center.

I commend the CSTC for its success in providing the training grounds, facilities, and support to Army Reserve soldiers. The world-class support and training reservists receive at CSTC is worthy of the utmost praise. I commend the U.S. Army Reserve for 100 years of stellar service to our State and Nation. I will continue to support the Army Reserve as a vital component of America's national defense.

Mr. President, the city of Los Angeles and the nationwide law enforcement community has lost an exemplary leader. Officer Randal Simmons, a 27-year veteran of the Los Angeles Police Department and 20-year member of the department's elite Special Weapons and Tactics Team, SWAT, is the first officer in the team's four-decade history to die in the line of duty. I would like to take a few moments to recognize Officer Randal Simmons' many important accomplishments and the tremendous impact he made as a leader in both his personal and professional life.

Originally from New York City, Simmons' family moved to southern California early in his life. He graduated from Fairfax High School in 1974 and then attended Washington State University where he studied criminology

and was a member of the University's football team.

After college, Simmons returned to the city of Los Angeles and became a member of the Los Angeles Police Department. During his career, Simmons served in many high-crime areas where he worked to not only protect the local community but also to combat gang activity. His dedication to serving the residents of Los Angeles was well recognized when he earned the distinction of becoming a member of the department's elite SWAT Team.

Simmons was not only a leader to his fellow officers but also a highly respected leader in his community. Serving as an ordained minister, he was an active member of his church and helped to build a community gymnasium. He volunteered much of his time to lead a group ministry that served nearly 1,500 children and also found time to serve as coach for his son's football team. His presence in the community will truly be missed.

I invite all of my colleagues to join me in recognizing and honoring Officer Randal Simmons for his guidance and leadership in fighting to improve the lives of all Angelinos. He is survived by his wife Lisa and their two children, to whom I send my heartfelt condolence. Officer Simmons leaves a lasting legacy of caring and compassion that serves as a model to us all.

Mr. President, I take this opportunity to recognize the 100th anniversary of the city of Larkspur, located in Marin County, CA.

The city of Larkspur was incorporated into the State of California on March 1, 1908. This year, we celebrate its centennial anniversary. With a downtown that is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, the architecture that defines the city of Larkspur has fascinated and charmed visitors for decades. Its historical structures and natural surroundings provide residents and visitors alike a glimpse of California the way it was at the start of the 20th century.

The city is divided into two distinct areas, with its historic downtown area to the west of Highway 101 and Larkspur Landing, an outdoor shopping area with sublime bay views, to the east of Highway 101. Just across the street from Larkspur Landing, travelers can catch the Larkspur Ferry to the San Francisco Ferry Building, a ride that offers spectacular views of Mount Tamalpais, Angel Island, and the Golden Gate Bridge. This outstanding natural scenery in the midst of such a finely preserved historical setting makes the slogan ``Meet me in Larkspur'' a common phrase amongst residents and visitors alike.

From the preservation of historic Magnolia Avenue to the conservation of the celebrated Blue Rock Inn, the city of Larkspur offers visitors a vibrant look at smalltown California as it was in the early 1900s. For 100 years, the city of Larkspur has not only served as a recreational escape and historical wonderland for those visiting the city but a place to call home for its more than 11,000 residents. I commend the city of Larkspur for maintaining the natural beauty and historical significance that defines this fine city.

The city of Larkspur's vision and commitment to protecting its small piece of California history should be commended. I congratulate the city of Larkspur for its hard work on this special occasion, and I look forward to future generations having the opportunity to visit and enjoy this unique city.

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

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

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

Thank you.

If I might, yes.

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

Mr. President, I am speaking to an amendment that was offered by Senator DeMint, which he said he wants to reoffer. I want to address this amendment which unfairly targets and penalizes taxpaying Americans by denying them some very important appropriations that were approved by Congress in 2008.

Senator DeMint came to the floor to describe actions that the city of Berkeley took last week in relation to the U.S. Marine Corps recruiting office. Let me be completely clear about those actions. Three of the members, in particular, wanted to send a letter expressing their disapproval of the Marines having a recruiting center in Berkeley. The language was offensive to many. I did not agree with anything they said.

Now, on Tuesday, they explicitly stated that the ill-advised letter they were planning to send to the Marines would no longer be sent. Therefore, you would think Senator DeMint would then say, fine, I am glad they changed their mind. In addition, the city said this in writing.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the statement they made about the Marines, if I might.

Mr. President, they said they ``deeply respect and support the men and women of our Armed Forces.'' I think the council did the right thing. They realized they should not mix up the Iraq war, which was brought to us by this President, and the warriors who fight it. There is a difference. They recognized that. I am very glad about that. You would think Senator DeMint would be very glad about that. He is not. He is still angry and he is still wanting to fight the battle of a couple weeks ago and not recognize the fact that this letter he was railing about, which offended him and many others, was never sent.

That aside, the DeMint amendment is an attack on the rights of citizens to participate in free speech. There are a lot of things that go on in this country that I think are terrible; I think they are wrong, mean spirited, and hurtful. I think a lot of things, because we all have our own opinions on what is said. If every time I heard about some city councilman in some city in another State saying something I thought was offensive, that hurt our military, our seniors, disabled people, minorities or children, I came out here and said: Oh, my goodness, let's withhold funds from that city because of that city councilman, we would have quite a situation on our hands.

State and local governments all across this Nation pass resolutions and measures that many of us don't agree with on a host of issues. Disagreements are part of the political discourse. Why on Earth would we punish good, decent citizens because some members of their local government or the sewer district or mosquito abatement district or water district or others say something that is offensive? Yes, we have a right to come to the floor, as Senator DeMint did, and say it is terrible and wrong and take it back. That is fine. I welcome that. But I don't sit around waiting to hear what they are saying in South Carolina, Georgia, Texas, and Oklahoma--those are the States of the Senators who want to take away these funds from the good people of northern California. I don't sit around waiting to see what they might say, and then say I am going to punish everybody because I don't agree with that speech.

The other thing I found interesting is that in a press release the Senator from South Carolina, Senator DeMint, challenged the process by which the funding requests were granted by the Appropriations Committee. Today, he called them ``secret'' earmarks. Yet every one of these projects was funded in the most open and transparent manner.

I will show you what those earmarks are. As a matter of fact, this is an opportunity for me to celebrate those particular projects because they are so important to the police, to the fire department, to the children, to the disabled, to students, to the memory of a wonderful Congressman Bob Matsui, and also to the environment. You will see what I mean. Every document pertaining to those projects was made available to the public. Every request was approved in the openness of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees and the openness of the House and Senate Chambers.

If the Senator from South Carolina, Senator DeMint, was so concerned with these funding requests for our police, for our fire department, for our children, the disabled community, for our environment, and for our college students, he had the opportunity to challenge the funding of those requests. He had that opportunity when the bill was on the Senate floor. He didn't do that. Oh, no, he is going to challenge them because someone in the city council--several members--said something offensive that he didn't like and, therefore, as a result of that, instead of standing up and talking to those people who made those offensive comments and trying to change their mind, he tries to punish all the people in the surrounding area. The reason, I would posit, that the Senator didn't challenge these earmarks at the time they were made is because they are excellent programs.

Congressional and executive funding requests, whether they are earmarks from the President or Congress, should be awarded based on merit, not based on what someone in a community said. It is just beyond belief. They should be able to stand on their own merits and serve the people we represent.

I am going to show you some photographs that talk about some of these earmarks. The first is of these beautiful children standing in this garden that is run for the benefit of public schools in the Berkeley School District. These students learn how to plant and grow vegetables and harvest the vegetables. They work the garden. They learn about nutrition. They learn how to cook the food, serve the food, and clean up. This is such a popular program that it is being replicated in places as far away as Louisiana. We all know we have serious problems with our kids with diabetes. We know our kids don't eat the way we want them to because they are attracted to high-sugar foods and sodas and all the things that are not good for them. Here is a program that teaches them to love the whole notion of eating in a healthy way. That is a program Senator DeMint went after, along with his friends who are cosponsors. I wish to show you some other programs that are impacted. This is unbelievable.

In this photo, we see a few of the most seriously disabled people you can find in America today. They want to live independently. Here is Ed Roberts, who needs oxygen every second, with a tube in his mouth. We want these wonderful people--some of them who are veterans--to be able to live independently. Here you see pictures of them doing that, with paralyzed bodies--children, moms. He wants to take away the funding because he disagreed with what some people said at the Berkeley City Council, which they now have taken back. Outrageous. Outrageous.

Let's show you the other earmarks they are going after. Here are students at UC Berkeley. There is a program named after Bob Matsui, the beloved Congressman. They are going after that program as well.

Here is a picture of congestion in the San Francisco Bay area, where you can see the Bay Bridge here; and you can barely tell it from where you are sitting, Mr. President, but all these dots are cars. We have the most congested areas in the country. We want to get funding for a ferry boat to carry people and get them out of their cars and use the waterways. This was Congresswoman Lee's earmark. He wants to cut this because he didn't agree with members of the council who have now taken back what they said.

Here are our heroes, the firefighters. They are part of the recipients of an award that we said they deserve so there could be some communication in our region between the fire and the police in the jurisdiction, so that when we have a terror attack--and we hope we never do--or when we have a fire--and we often do--or an earthquake, which we often do, they have communications equipment. This is what Senator DeMint wants to take away from law-abiding firefighters because he didn't agree with something the city council said, which they took back.

Here is the real point I have to make about all this. Senator Chambliss is an original cosponsor of the DeMint amendment challenging these earmarks. Let's look at an earmark he got in his State. It was for the Daugherty County School System Healthy Lifestyle Program. Ours is the Berkeley Unified School District School Lunch Initiative. I don't see Senator Chambliss trying to give up his program. I would never try to take that away from him because of something somebody said in his State that I didn't agree with.

Here is Senator Cornyn, another proud sponsor of the DeMint amendment to slash these earmarks: Ed Roberts Disability Services Campus in

Berkeley. I showed the people coming back from the war, paralyzed veterans in wheelchairs. Senator Cornyn wants to cut that earmark because the city council said something offensive which they have now since taken back. I would never go after Senator Cornyn's paratransit vehicle replacement in Abilene, TX.

Here we go: The Strom Thurmond Fitness and Wellness Center at the University of South Carolina. We don't know who got that earmark because it was secret. It was secret. But I would never try to take away the Strom Thurmond Fitness and Wellness Center. Then let them leave alone the Bob Matsui Center for Public Service at UC Berkeley.

Senator Inhofe, my friend, is a proud sponsor of this amendment, too. He has the Oklahoma City River Ferry Boat Transportation Program. He was proud to get that earmark. I would never go after that if someone in Oklahoma said something that I did not like, a city councilman, a mayor. Maybe I wouldn't like it and I might write them a letter and say what they said was wrong, unpatriotic, I don't agree with it. But I would never go after an earmark that helps move people from place to place. So let him leave alone the San Francisco water ferry.

Here is Senator Vitter, another proud cosponsor of the DeMint amendment. I cannot tell my colleagues how many times I have helped Senator Vitter in my committee get help for the people of Louisiana. Do I agree with what every city council member says in Louisiana? Probably not. And if I did disagree with them, if they said something I found unpatriotic or not caring about our troops, I would send them a letter, but I wouldn't go after Senator Vitter's earmark for the Baton Rouge Communication Technology Pilot Program because I think it is important that police, fire, and emergency workers, who are our heroes, have the funding they need.

The final item I want to show my colleagues is this: This move by Senator DeMint to take away the funding was addressed by the chair of the Military Affairs Department, Commanding Officer, ROTC, at the University of California. I want to read what he said about the University of California at Berkeley. I will just read certain statements:

Given the recent spate of controversy surrounding the U.S.

Marine recruiting office . . . I feel it is my obligation to

inform members of Congress of the relationship we have with

the university and the outstanding support it provides not

just to the ROTC Program but to all military personnel, their

dependents and veterans as well.

UC Berkeley has been and continues to be a very big

supporter of all our ROTC programs here on campus. They

should in no way be associated with or linked to the actions

of the Berkeley City Council which has taken on a very

outspoken stance against the United States Marine Corps

Recruiting Station in the city. . . .

I would like to ensure that those in favor of the Semper Fi

Act understand that UC Berkeley is a tremendous supporter of

all the military programs on campus as well as all the

military personnel, their dependents and veterans who attend

this university. It would be a travesty of justice to . . .

punish UC Berkeley for the actions of the Berkeley City

Council.

When this was written, I don't know whether Captain Laird knew that the Berkeley City Council did not send that letter and instead finally realized their mistake and said how much they support our men and women in uniform.

The fact is, this kind of a punishment for a community such as this, a community of families who care about their country, who are taxpaying citizens, because of actions of a few, is an outrage. It would be a terrible precedent if we now started punishing children, policemen, firemen, disabled veterans, and students. If that is what we are going to become in this Senate, then we do not deserve to be here. That is absolutely wrong.

The Marine Corps has given 232 years of exemplary service to our Nation and, tragically, 974 of the marines who served in Iraq paid the ultimate price. More than 440 of those were based at Twenty-nine Palms and Camp Pendleton in my home State of California. The Marines deserve our respect and our gratitude and our support.

Again, I am glad that the council realized there is a difference between a war and a warrior.

Again, Senator DeMint seems to be making political points on an issue that essentially was resolved. But if he wants to come here and debate with me why it is right to take away money from students, if he wants to debate with me why it is OK to take away money from disabled veterans, why it is OK to take away money from firefighters, many of whom are veterans, many of whom put their lives on the line every day, if he wants to have that debate, I will be on my feet, and I will have that debate.

I know Senator Dorgan wishes to have the floor. Mr. President, is Senator Dorgan ready to make his UC request?

I will yield to Senator Dorgan or I can complete in 2 minutes.

The point I am making is, we all have our opinion on what constitutes free speech. I support Senator DeMint's right to express his opinion about what he thought of the proposed actions of the Berkeley City Council. He has every right to do that. He has every right to offer his amendment. But I have every right to come down here and say I think not only is it mean-spirited, it is hurtful to the wrong people. And I have every right to come down here and say: Senator DeMint, they never sent that letter to the Marines, happily. They rethought it.

If he wants to continue with this amendment, if he wants to offer it to every bill we have, then I will be right down here with these photographs and others that I have. I will be right down here with more testimony from the military who will testify to how incredibly welcoming UC Berkeley is to our men and women in uniform.

There will be wars in the future--we all hope there will not be, but there may be--with which we do not agree, but we must never confuse our anger at the people who would send our young people to a war of choice or a wrongheaded war and the young people who are sent there. We must come here every day to support those young men and women. Let's not use this as a way to take cheap political shots because they do not deserve it.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that immediately following Senator Feingold's 15 minutes on FISA, I be recognized for 10 minutes and that the time be taken from Senator Dodd's 4 hours.

Mr. President, I rise to speak about the FISA bill currently being considered by the Senate. I believe it is our duty to provide all the tools necessary to fight terrorism. We also have another duty--I would say a simultaneous duty, a sworn duty--to protect the constitutional rights of our citizens.

So we have two duties. One is to protect the American people and give the Government the tools it needs to do that; two, to protect the constitutional rights of Americans. If we lose those rights, then the basic freedoms of our people are at risk.

I believe we have fallen far short. We have fallen far short of the balance that we always need to look for, ever since the beginning of our Republic--

the balance between security and freedom. I think we missed it here.

It is not the Government's job to scare our people; it is the Government's job to protect our people. It is not the Government's job to endanger the privacy of law-abiding Americans, but to protect the privacy of law-abiding Americans. Sadly, we had a number of amendments to this bill which would have brought that balance I talked about into being, the balance between security and freedom.

Senator Feingold had an amendment limiting the use and dissemination of information unlawfully obtained through foreign surveillance on U.S. citizens. His amendment would have protected the rights of innocent U.S. citizens and provided a necessary balance to the bill. I was proud to support it because the bill, obviously, needed some more checks and balances.

Senator Feingold also had an amendment to provide protection against bulk collection of foreign communications that could include communications of innocent Americans. Again, this measure would have provided additional protection for the rights of American citizens, and I was proud to support it because I believe we need, again, additional checks on enhanced Government surveillance authority.

My colleague and friend from California, Senator Feinstein, had an amendment that stated a very important principle: that FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, is the exclusive authority for conducting foreign intelligence surveillance.

Why is that important? It is important because this administration argues time and again that ``it has inherent authority'' to conduct warrantless surveillance, or that Congress somehow gave them the authority when it authorized the use of military force in Iraq--a ridiculous claim. The Feinstein amendment was a very important amendment because it would have made it clear that FISA is the exclusive authority, pure and simple.

Why was that important going forward? We don't want to have this administration or another one in the future--I don't care which party they are from--spying on the American people and then saying: It is true, we didn't obey FISA, but we thought it was important to go outside the law. If we had adopted the Feinstein amendment, we would have clearly stated that FISA is the law when it comes to conducting surveillance on our own people.

The Feinstein amendment--which failed, sadly by only 1 or 2 votes short of the 60-vote hurdle--said we are not going to lose our freedoms, we are not going to allow another administration to spy on us; FISA is going to be the one and only law that pertains here.

Finally, there is the issue of immunity for telecommunications companies that cooperated with the administration's warrantless surveillance program. We know that American law did not give these telephone companies the authority to do what they did, but they were somehow persuaded by the administration to go along with them. Not every telephone company, not every communications company did go along. At least one said: Look, we think this is not legal; show us the legality. And they stood, I think, in firm support of their consumers.

Here is the problem with granting immunity. Congress has not been given complete information on this program. We do not know the level of involvement by the telephone companies and the telecom companies. We need complete information; we have incomplete information. How can I be a good Senator, how can I do a good job if I don't have the facts surrounding this whole matter of the warrantless surveillance program? When you put out that immunity, you basically stop the court cases, and if you stop the court cases, we will never get to the bottom of this issue and our citizens will never know who was spied on, why were they spied on, what happened, what went wrong, what went right, and how much power this Government tried to exercise over its people illegally.

Granting immunity without fully understanding whether our people were illegally spied upon and to what extent, I find that irresponsible. Where is our pride? We wrote a law that said phone companies cannot do this, and they went ahead and did it. Not all of them. Now we are saying: Never mind, President Bush and Vice President Cheney write the law, they make the decision. It is not right. It is not American. It is anti-American. It is not what we do in this great country.

President Bush says we are sending our troops overseas to fight for freedom, fight for democracy, and at home they ask the telecom companies to break the law. They spied on Americans, and we cannot find out what they did, how they did it, the details of the program, and now we are going to now grant immunity. I cannot believe that we didn't do better on that particular amendment. That amendment failed. Again, I was proud to stand with Senator Dodd and Senator Feingold on the amendment.

In closing, I don't believe this bill strikes the kind of balance we need between broadening the Government's authority to conduct surveillance and protecting the rights of our citizens. We did have many chances today to increase the oversight of FISA surveillance programs. We had many opportunities to hold this administration accountable and future administrations accountable while giving them what they need to go after the bad actors, those who would harm us. I voted to get bin Laden. I voted to go to war against al-Qaida. I voted no on the Iraq war because that was a diversion. I want to get the terrorists who perpetrated 9/11. I want to give any administration the tools they need, but I do not want to expose my constituents and the people of America who are law-abiding and caring and all they live for is for their families--I don't want to subject them to being spied upon.

Unfortunately, those amendments all went down. It is sad for me to say that we have a bill that steps on the rights of the freedoms of our people, of the law-abiding Americans in our country and, therefore, I cannot support it.

Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask that the time be taken equally off both sides.

Mr. President, California and the entire Nation lost a remarkable leader yesterday with the passing of my friend, Congressman Tom Lantos.

From his leadership as chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs to his founding of the Congressional Human Rights Caucus, Congressman Lantos went about his work with a dignity and a seriousness that transcended politics. In a time of bitter divisions, he earned the respect of colleagues from both sides of the aisle.

As a survivor of the Holocaust, Congressman Lantos brought to Congress a profound personal commitment to human rights. We will remember not only his courage and his optimism, but also his deep affection for his adopted country. He leaves behind a legacy of hope and inspiration.

On a personal level, it was an honor to call Tom a colleague and a friend. I was proud to work with him on so many important issues.

I remember working with him to secure funding to build a tunnel to bypass a section of Route 1 that was so frequently closed by landslides that it was known as ``Devil's Slide.'' It took years, but they broke ground on the tunnel in November. And it is a fitting tribute to the passion with which he served his constituents that there is a bill before the State senate to name that tunnel in his honor.

Congressman Lantos was a true statesman, and we will miss him. My heart goes out to his family during this time of grief. They are in our thoughts and in our prayers.

Reserving the right to object, I will not object, If we are doing it this way, I would ask unanimous consent to follow Senator Alexander.

Madam President, I had asked for 3 minutes. I ask unanimous consent for 4 minutes.

Madam President, yesterday we were all very saddened when we failed to get the Senate Finance Committee stimulus package passed. We lost by one vote because Republicans filibustered, and they forced us to get 60. We got 59 votes for that package, but it was not good enough. So now today our Republican friends happily are joining us on two elements of that package, and we are adding it to the House proposal.

I am pleased that 20 million senior citizens will get a check as part of the stimulus package, our stimulus package, the Senate's. I thank the senior citizens and their organizations for calling all Senators and telling them it is outrageous to leave out the seniors. I am beyond pleased as well that 250,000 disabled veterans will get a check as part of the Senate's stimulus package. I thank the veterans and their organizations for calling Senators constantly in their offices to say: Make us part of the package. To have left them out would have been outrageous on its face, just as it was outrageous that when the President suggested his package, he wanted to leave out more than 30 million Americans who didn't file tax returns, just paid payroll taxes, and acted as if those working Americans don't deserve to have a check. I thank Speaker Pelosi for fixing that problem. That was a huge problem. She did fix that problem, and now we fixed some more problems.

Democrats want to do more. We were stopped again today from doing more. Let me go into that because I stood here on the floor as the Republicans objected to request after request after request to add the rest of the Senate Finance package to the stimulus bill.

Senator Reid said: We need to have low-income energy assistance. We know the cost of heating is high, and we know people are suffering under the burden of paying it. No, that was objected to. That was objected to. Then we said, there are some States that have very high unemployment rates, and we see a high unemployment rate beginning to hit many States. We want to extend unemployment insurance to the long- term unemployed. Those are the people who would go right out and spend those checks at the corner store, which is just what we wanted to do. No, our Republican friends said, no. Then we asked unanimous consent to help the homebuilders get a tax break. They are struggling under the horrendous situation we find ourselves in today in the housing market. No, there was objection from our Republican friends. Then we asked, through Senator Reid, for green energy tax breaks so the folks who are out there who are trying to build this economy and get us off foreign oil can get those tax breaks. Republicans said no. Then we were asking if they would allow us to put in here a program President Bush himself endorses--housing revenue bonds to help with the housing crisis. The Republicans said no.

We are all very happy that seniors and the disabled veterans are going to have a smile on their face tonight, but we are far from done. We Democrats are going to fight.

I come from a State that has 25 percent of the defaults. When I go to towns in my State, we have five roundtable discussions about the terrible situation that our mayors are facing, that our States are facing, that our counties are facing. We need to do more, and we Democrats are not going to give up. This is phase 1.

I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield for an answer since he mentioned me?

Madam President, I speak the truth. I speak the truth. I stood next to Senator Reid, and he made requests on all those issues I outlined--LIHEAP, extended unemployment benefits, tax breaks for solar, et cetera--and the Republican side objected. I speak the truth. I am happy we have joined together on two aspects of the proposal, but the truth is, there is more to the story. We have more work to do. The fact that I mentioned this is to sort of spur you on, to say: Come to the table with us again, and let's do more. That is the reason I said what I said.

Mr. President, today I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Dr. Lyn Behrens as she retires as president and CEO of Loma Linda University Adventist Health Sciences Center, drawing to a close a successful career in medicine and civic leadership.

After completing her degree in medicine from the Sydney University School of Medicine in Australia in 1964, Dr. Behrens became the first and only pediatric resident at Loma Linda University Medical Center in 1966. By 1986, Dr. Behrens was the first female Dean of the School of Medicine, and by 1990 she had become the first female President of Loma Linda University. Five years later she assumed the position of CEO of Adventist Health System, which soon became the Loma Linda University Adventist Health Science Center. In 1999, Dr. Behrens was chosen to serve as President of Loma Linda University Medical Center. Loma Linda University and Medical Center has prospered under her leadership, and has become a preeminent institution for patient care and medical technology. I have had the pleasure of visiting Loma Linda University and have found Dr. Behrens to be an exemplary model to her colleagues, capable of bringing out the best in her associates.

During Behrens' tenure, Loma Linda University witnessed the development of a dedicated children's hospital with the most advanced equipment and methodology. The university has also witnessed the development of a center for behavioral medicine, as well as a rehabilitation, orthopaedic and neurosciences institute. The university has also added new schools of pharmacy and science and technology, and has worked diligently to foster its interaction with local research institutes to develop innovation in the use of global information systems to assist with emergency medical response. The first hospital- based center for proton therapy and research has also been developed under Behrens' tenure, and has become a leading institution in the treatment of cancer. The university has taken great strides to improve care and support for our Nation's veterans at the Jerry L. Pettis Memorial VA Medical Center.

Dr. Behrens has also been a dynamic leader in her community, working to ensure positive community service to her area and throughout the world. She has been instrumental in bringing to fruition a great number of social and community services organizations and programs. Programs such as the Social Action Community Health Services Clinic, PossAbilities, Community Kids Connection and Operation Jessica, have brought medical and social support to a broad group of individuals. These organizations have assisted special needs and at-risk children and teens, and developed after-school programs and ESL--English Second Language--programs. Dr. Behrens' leadership has also provided for increased medical and community support internationally, providing support in 12 nations, including the only teaching hospital in Kabul, Afghanistan, and the most advanced hospital in mainland China.

As she retires from more than four decades of service and leadership in medicine to the communities of California and beyond, I am pleased to ask my colleagues to recognize her for a career of visionary leadership. The future of medical education, research, and service will be forever changed thanks to her bold leadership.

Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing and honoring the California Institute of Technology's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, JPL, in Pasadena, CA, for 50 years of space exploration. Since the launch of Explorer I, America's first spacecraft, on January 31, 1958, JPL has made momentous and historic contributions to our scientific understanding of our vast universe.

For the past five decades, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory has been a respected leader in furthering scientific knowledge around the world. Explorer 1 was built in less than 3 months, and was the first spacecraft ever launched into space that actually revolved around Earth and provided scientific findings from space. The immense success of Explorer I led to the passage of the Space Act in 1958, which established the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

Since the inception of NASA, JPL has been on the forefront of science and technology through its research and exploration of every known planet in our solar system. Subsequent to the success of Explorer I, JPL has continued to have a central role in accomplished space missions, such as exploring our vast solar system with Voyager 1 and 2 and the Mars Exploration Rovers. JPL has also been instrumental in understanding our planet.

I congratulate the California Institute of Technology's Jet Propulsion Laboratory on 50 years of successful and insightful space exploration, and thank the original members of the Explorer I team for their contribution to American history.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak on the Democrats' time to pay tribute to Marine Cpl Sean Andrew Stokes. I thank Senator Kyl for agreeing to this request.

Mr. President, tomorrow, Wednesday, February 6, at Camp Pendleton in my home State of California, one of the true heroes of our country will receive a rare and distinguished honor. On what would have been his 25th birthday, Marine Cpl Sean Andrew Stokes--and I show you that beautiful face in this picture--will be awarded the Silver Star for heroic actions performed in the line of duty during Operation Phantom Fury in Fallujah, Iraq.

From November 9 through November 18 of 2004, then-Private Stokes took the position of ``point'' in his platoon. That means he was the first Marine to enter a building and the first Marine to encounter whatever and whoever was inside. Bullets, grenades, and rockets were around every corner. For 9 days and nights, Sean fought insurgents in hand-to- hand combat, in house after house, in building after building.

Most of us would lose our sanity in such a place, but Sean kept his sanity with a simple prayer of thanks after coming out of each house alive.

Word of Sean's actions over those days quickly spread. The History Channel made a documentary about the battle of Fallujah, and Sean's heroic actions were prominently featured.

Embedded in Sean's platoon was Pat O'Donnell, a historian who wrote a critically acclaimed book, ``We Were One: Shoulder to Shoulder with the Marines Who Took Fallujah.'' Mr. O'Donnell has said Sean hid his wounds on more than one occasion so he could stay with his Marine brothers rather than take the mandatory medical evacuation. He said:

Sean always put others first before himself.

Sean will be receiving the Silver Star tomorrow for his actions on his first tour. His father Gary conducted research, and as best as he can tell, Sean is the first Marine to be awarded the Silver Star for actions while a private since two Marine privates received such an honor during the Vietnam war.

In September 2005, Sean returned to Iraq, once again at the front of his platoon, where he distinguished himself and was eventually promoted to corporal.

Sean could have left the Marine Corps at the end of that tour. His father urged him to get out, but Sean said: What about everybody else? He felt the need to stick by his buddies who had stood by his side every single day in Iraq.

In April of 2007, Sean went back for his third deployment. Sean's father wrote:

He went back to Iraq to protect his best friend, Bradley

Adams, and because he wanted to be a Marine more than

anything else in life.

Sean, along with Bradley, was assigned to the battalion commander's personal security detachment, a position reserved for elite and combat- seasoned warriors. The two managed to eventually maneuver their way into the lead vehicle, once again taking point, which earned Sean the nickname ``Pathfinder.''

That battalion commander told Gary Stokes his son had saved his life on numerous occasions, including on July 30, 2007, the day Sean Stokes died from an improvised explosive device attack while on patrol in Al Anbar Province.

Over 820 men and women who were either from California or based in California have died in Iraq. This young and heroic Marine is one of them.

Sean Stokes represented the best of the Marine Corps, the best of the United States, the best of California. He was born 25 years ago Wednesday in Fremont, CA. He grew up in the gold country of California in the town of Auburn.

He was into cars and his dad says he had lots of them. When he returned from his first tour in Iraq, the people of Auburn learned he wanted to fix up his Honda Prelude, so they, the people of the town, put on some new rims, spruced it up, and made it look good--all free of charge--for Sean.

He attended Bear River High School, where he played linebacker on the football team and the outfield on the baseball team.

Upon learning that Sean died, Bear River retired his No. 51 football jersey, the first time the school has ever retired a number.

Of his baseball ability, Sean's dad draws a parallel to a great home- run hitter also born on Wednesday--Babe Ruth. He said it is no coincidence that he was the only kid on the all-star team to hit the ball out of Babe Ruth Baseball Park onto the nearby road, not once but three times.

Sean's dad also says he was quite popular and had lots of girlfriends. But he had found true love and was engaged to Nicole Besier, a beautiful young girl who is also a Marine.

Gary Stokes wrote to me about his son:

Sean turned out to be a great fisherman and from the time

he was a little guy, he loved to fish. I remember taking Sean

camping, and that is all he wanted to do the entire time

during our camping trips and other outings and vacations.

Even though I understand that the Tigris River was polluted

and at times surrounded by terrorists, I would be surprised

if Sean did not throw in a fishing line a few times during

one of his three tours in Iraq.

``Sean, like his brother Kevin, is a great son,'' his father writes. We do have a photo, I believe, of Kevin. We are going to get out the photo to show the brothers together.

Sean, like his brother Kevin, is a great son, and we always

would make sure to make time to do fun things together as

much as possible, like golf, fishing, or camping.

This is a picture of Sean and his brother.

His father continues:

Sean and I made the commitment years ago to not be like the

father and son in the song ``Cats in the Cradle.'' Sean has

touched many lives during his short life and he was loved and

was respected by everyone whom he met.

Sean's life was short, but it was full and he always gave

it his all in everything he did.

Tomorrow's ceremony at Camp Pendleton honors the heroism and the bravery of Sean Stokes. Similar to the other Marines out at Camp Pendleton and the rest of the men and women in uniform around the world, he volunteered to carry the burden of protecting our beloved Nation.

He fought for the man next to him and for the troops behind him, and he died in service to them. We owe him our gratitude. And we owe his family our gratitude and we owe the families of all the men and women who serve in harm's way our gratitude. We can never forget what they have sacrificed.

I conclude as the Senator from California, we have lost so many. As a mother, as a grandmother, I will do everything, along with my colleagues, to bring our troops home and to spare others the deep grief this family has endured.

I again thank Senator Kyl for his graciousness in allowing me to have this opportunity to pay tribute to Sean.

I yield the floor.