Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to 34 young Americans who have been killed in Iraq since May 6. I have been doing this all throughout the war. All of them were from California or they were based in California.

LCpl Jeremiah E. Savage, age 21, died May 12 of wounds received due to hostile action in Al Anbar Province. He was assigned to 2nd Battalion, 4th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, Camp Pendleton,

Mr. President, breast cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death in the United States today, and about 40,000 women will die from the disease this year. It is important that we maintain funding in 2005 for the Department of Defense's Breast Cancer Peer Reviewed Research Program.

The program has funded groundbreaking research, including the discovery of the drug Herceptin, which prolongs the lives of women with a particularly aggressive type of advanced breast cancer. This drug could not have been developed without research that was funded in part by the DOD Breast Cancer Research Program. This is a program, I should add, in which 90 percent of the funds go directly to research.

An overwhelming, bipartisan majority in the Senate supports this program every year. This year 66 Senators signed a letter to appropriators urging the continuation of the DOD Breast Cancer Peer Reviewed Research Program earmark at a funding level of $150 million for FY '05.

Mr. President, as we proceed to conference on the Department of Defense Appropriations bill, I urge my colleagues to maintain this level of funding for breast cancer research.

Mr. President, I am introducing today with my colleague, Senator Gordon Smith, a bill that addresses an ecological crisis in California and Oregon that quite literally threatens to change the face of our States, as well as others. The beloved oak trees are in grave peril. Thousands of black oak, coastal live oak, tan and Shreve's oak trees--among the most familiar and best loved features of California's landscape--are dying from a disease known as Sudden Oak Death Syndrome (SODS).

Caused by an exotic species of the Phytophthora fungus--the fungus responsible for the Irish potato famine--SODS first struck a small number of tan oaks in Marin County in 1995. Now the disease has spread to other oak species from Big Sur in the south to Humboldt County in the north. The loss of trees is approaching epidemic proportions, with tens of thousands of dead trees appearing in thousands of acres of forests, parks, and gardens. As the trees die, enormous expanses of forest, some adjacent to residential areas, are subject to extreme fire hazards. Dead oak trees near homes significantly increase fire hazards, so residents who built their homes around or among oak trees are in particular danger.

Yet, the spread of the fungus-like pathogen that causes SODS is not limited to oak trees. It has also been found on rhododendron plants in California nurseries, bay trees, wild huckleberry plants and other nursery stock and small fruit trees. Due to genetic similaries, this pathogen potentially endangers Red and Pin oak trees on the East Coast, as well as the Northeast's lucrative commercial blueberry and cranberry industries.

SODS has already had serious economic and environmental impacts. After the initial discovery of the Sudden Oak Death, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) imposed a quarantine on oak products and some nursery stock in 10 counties in Northern California and Curry County, Oregon. Subsequently, two other counties in Northern California were also put under quarantine. The discovery of the pathogen that causes SODS in two Southern California nurseries in March 2004 led the USDA to impose restrictions on the interstate movement of host and potential host plants--as well as plants within 10 meters of these plants--from all nurseries in California. To date, 17 States and Canada have placed their own restrictions on the importation of California's nursery stock, and some States have banned plants from California altogether.

If left unchecked, SODS could cause major damage to our commercial nurseries, as well the health, productivity and biodiversity of our forests. California is the nursery industry's lead producer of horticultural plants, valued at $2 billion a year. The State's oak woodlands provide shelter, habitat, and food to over 300 wildlife species. They also reduce soil erosion and help moderate extremes in temperature. Not only does SODS put all these benefits at risk, but dead and infected trees from this disease increase the threat of wildfire, threatening our communities.

More needs to be known about the pathogen that causes SODS. Scientists are struggling to better understand SODS, how the disease is transmitted, and what the best treatment options might be. In 2000, the U.S. Forest Service, the University of California, the State Departments of Forestry and Fire Protection, and County Agricultural Commissioners created an Oak Mortality Task Force to help coordinate research, management, monitoring, education, and public policies aimed at addressing SODS. Although we have learned a great deal about SODS since the, adequate Federal support is needed if we are to stop the spread of this disease before it is too late.

That is why I am introducing the Sudden Oak Death Syndrome Control Act of 2004, which is based on legislation I introduced in 2001 and which passed the Senate in 2002. The Sudden Oak Death Syndrome Control Act of 2004 would authorize $44.2 million annually over the next five years for creation of a Sudden Oak Death research and monitoring program, management and treatment activities, fire prevention activities, and education and outreach. The bill would also provide funding for a comprehensive national survey of the fungus-like pathogen that causes SODS and a risk assessment of the threat posed by this pathogen to natural and managed plant resources. Combined with the efforts of state and local officials, this legislation will help to prevent the dire predictions from becoming a terrible reality.

This bill is endorsed by the American Nursery & Landscape Association, the California Association of Nurseries and Garden Centers, the Nursery Growers Association of California, the state, local and private members of the California Oak Mortality Task Force, and the Marin County Board of Supervisors.

I thank Senator Smith for working with me on this bill and for joining me in introducing it. I urge my colleagues to join us in this effort to help ensure the protection of our nation's commercial nursery industry and precious woodlands.

I ask unanimous consent that letters from these organizations be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am introducing today with my colleague, Senator Gordon Smith, a bill that addresses an ecological crisis in California and Oregon that quite literally threatens to change the face of our States, as well as others. The beloved oak trees are in grave peril. Thousands of black oak, coastal live oak, tan and Shreve's oak trees--among the most familiar and best loved features of California's landscape--are dying from a disease known as Sudden Oak Death Syndrome (SODS).

Caused by an exotic species of the Phytophthora fungus--the fungus responsible for the Irish potato famine--SODS first struck a small number of tan oaks in Marin County in 1995. Now the disease has spread to other oak species from Big Sur in the south to Humboldt County in the north. The loss of trees is approaching epidemic proportions, with tens of thousands of dead trees appearing in thousands of acres of forests, parks, and gardens. As the trees die, enormous expanses of forest, some adjacent to residential areas, are subject to extreme fire hazards. Dead oak trees near homes significantly increase fire hazards, so residents who built their homes around or among oak trees are in particular danger.

Yet, the spread of the fungus-like pathogen that causes SODS is not limited to oak trees. It has also been found on rhododendron plants in California nurseries, bay trees, wild huckleberry plants and other nursery stock and small fruit trees. Due to genetic similaries, this pathogen potentially endangers Red and Pin oak trees on the East Coast, as well as the Northeast's lucrative commercial blueberry and cranberry industries.

SODS has already had serious economic and environmental impacts. After the initial discovery of the Sudden Oak Death, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) imposed a quarantine on oak products and some nursery stock in 10 counties in Northern California and Curry County, Oregon. Subsequently, two other counties in Northern California were also put under quarantine. The discovery of the pathogen that causes SODS in two Southern California nurseries in March 2004 led the USDA to impose restrictions on the interstate movement of host and potential host plants--as well as plants within 10 meters of these plants--from all nurseries in California. To date, 17 States and Canada have placed their own restrictions on the importation of California's nursery stock, and some States have banned plants from California altogether.

If left unchecked, SODS could cause major damage to our commercial nurseries, as well the health, productivity and biodiversity of our forests. California is the nursery industry's lead producer of horticultural plants, valued at $2 billion a year. The State's oak woodlands provide shelter, habitat, and food to over 300 wildlife species. They also reduce soil erosion and help moderate extremes in temperature. Not only does SODS put all these benefits at risk, but dead and infected trees from this disease increase the threat of wildfire, threatening our communities.

More needs to be known about the pathogen that causes SODS. Scientists are struggling to better understand SODS, how the disease is transmitted, and what the best treatment options might be. In 2000, the U.S. Forest Service, the University of California, the State Departments of Forestry and Fire Protection, and County Agricultural Commissioners created an Oak Mortality Task Force to help coordinate research, management, monitoring, education, and public policies aimed at addressing SODS. Although we have learned a great deal about SODS since the, adequate Federal support is needed if we are to stop the spread of this disease before it is too late.

That is why I am introducing the Sudden Oak Death Syndrome Control Act of 2004, which is based on legislation I introduced in 2001 and which passed the Senate in 2002. The Sudden Oak Death Syndrome Control Act of 2004 would authorize $44.2 million annually over the next five years for creation of a Sudden Oak Death research and monitoring program, management and treatment activities, fire prevention activities, and education and outreach. The bill would also provide funding for a comprehensive national survey of the fungus-like pathogen that causes SODS and a risk assessment of the threat posed by this pathogen to natural and managed plant resources. Combined with the efforts of state and local officials, this legislation will help to prevent the dire predictions from becoming a terrible reality.

This bill is endorsed by the American Nursery & Landscape Association, the California Association of Nurseries and Garden Centers, the Nursery Growers Association of California, the state, local and private members of the California Oak Mortality Task Force, and the Marin County Board of Supervisors.

I thank Senator Smith for working with me on this bill and for joining me in introducing it. I urge my colleagues to join us in this effort to help ensure the protection of our nation's commercial nursery industry and precious woodlands.

I ask unanimous consent that letters from these organizations be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I take this moment to reflect on the life of Ray Charles. I feel lucky to have grown up with the innovative and passionate sounds of Ray Charles unique mix of gospel and blues. His work took listeners from the depths of his profound sadness to cathartic heights in his love

and performance of music. Ray Charles will be deeply missed by fans and fellow musicians alike.

Ray Charles Robinson was born September 23, 1930, in Albany, GA. The child of a mechanic, Bailey Robinson, and a saw-mill worker, Aretha, Ray Charles' life was a lesson in triumph over adversity. A young Charles began losing his sight at infancy and was clinically blind by the age of 7. Two years prior his brother had accidentally drowned, and by age 15, Charles lost both parents and had no immediate family. Alone, sad, and orphaned, Ray Charles went to live with friends of his mother, nearly 200 miles away from home, in Jacksonville, FL.

Charles lived in Jacksonville for a year developing his talent as a musician before moving to Orlando, supporting himself, a 16 year-old orphan, with only his seemingly dauntless optimism to help him along. Work was sparse, and income was never guaranteed. He left Florida, looking for a new city with potential for new challenges, took what little money he had and made a five-day bus trip to Seattle, WA. It was here that Charles formed his first group, a small jazz group called the McSon Trio.

Emulating the vocal styles of his musical idol, Nat King Cole, Ray Charles formed a rhythm and blues group led by vocalist Ruth Brown. The band played night after night in smoky back-alley clubs throughout Seattle's red light district. As Charles reflected in his autobiography, these clubs consisted of little more than a big room with a band in one corner, liquor in the other, and a shoulder to shoulder audience. Playing in Seattle, Ray Charles met Quincy Jones, showing the young future producer how to write and compose music. It was the beginning of a lifelong friendship.

It was on the West Coast that Ray Charles' famous career truly began to develop. Swingtime Records signed Charles in Seattle, giving him his first break in the music business. And in 1950, the company flew him to Los Angeles to record. In 1952 his contract was purchased by Atlantic Records, and by 1954, Charles had formed his own band recording his unique raw and tortured mix of gospel and rhythm n' blues a style that would later be known as soul music--with songs like ``I Got A Woman,'' and the later ``Georgia on my Mind,'' with ABC-Paramount. Ray Charles, the innovator and musical provocateur was being called ``The Genius'' by contemporaries and playing at such famous venues as Carnegie Hall and the Newport Jazz Festival.

In the 1960s, Ray Charles would truly come to call Los Angeles home. He had his own studio designed and built by long time friend and business manager Joe Adams, and recorded his first album, ``Country and Western Meets Rhythm and Blues,'' at the studio in 1965. Charles would continue his recording career here for nearly 40 years until his death, and once said of the studio, ``I love this place. It's the only home I've truly had for most of my professional career, and I would never leave it.'' Charles would go on to produce numerous hits in his Los Angeles location, continuing an impressive career that would later earn him 12 Grammy Awards between 1960 and 1966, including best R&B recording for three consecutive years. The Ray Charles Studio was designated a Los Angeles historical landmark on April 30, 2004 thanks to the hard work of Councilman Martin Ludlow and City Council President Alex Padilla. Ray Charles made his last public appearance in Los Angeles at his studio as the site was designated a city historic landmark, a living testament to Charles' 40 years living and working in the city of Los Angeles.

The music of Ray Charles was a deep and powerful reflection of the American musical tradition. From troubled origins in the south that would characterize the blues aspect of Charles lyrical style to the gospel influences present in so many of Charles' hits, soul music encapsulates so much of the American story. From racism, to heartache, to loneliness, to redemption, Ray Charles was writing the songs that could only come from an American artist and influencing a generation of musicians. He was at once expert composer, rock and roller, long- sufferer, genius, and poet. He was, to say the least, one of America's greatest artists, and will be deeply missed.

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

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

Mr. President, we are going to face a series of amendments on the missile defense system, and I believe I have an amendment which I am surprised we even have to have a long debate about because it is so straightforward. It says let us not spend the money to deploy the system until it has been tested and until it has been certified as passing those tests by the one office that has the capability of doing it, which is the Office of Director of Operational Test and Evaluation.

We want to ensure that the ballistic missile defense system the President plans to deploy later this year has passed these tests.

In 1983, Congress created the Office of the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation--DOT&E. It is now headed by Mr. Thomas Christie.

The Office of DOT&E was created under the ``fly before you buy'' law. ``Fly before you buy'' makes a lot of sense for our taxpayers. Frankly, when it comes to defending our country, my goodness, how much more important can it be before we tell our people they are protected that we actually know they are protected and that the tests which have been done have been signed off on by the very office that has been created for that purpose?

The office oversees the operational testing programs of all major military systems. Operational testing is intended to be as realistic as possible. This includes testing at night, testing in bad weather, using soldiers rather than contractors who have a special interest in the outcome of the test, and using expected enemy countermeasures.

Let me repeat that. In order to have operational tests that you can trust, the testing has to be done under realistic circumstances. We don't know if our enemy is going to attack us on a beautiful, clear day with the wind blowing at a certain rate. The fact is, we need to test under the harshest conditions so that we know what we are deploying works. It must be a realistic test. Most importantly, the tests must be conducted by the Office of DOT&E--

the program that is developing the weapons system.

I am sure you are going to hear people stand up and fight against this amendment.

I have to tell you that if you really look at the facts, they do not have them on this side. If I were to ask one of my constituents, who knew nothing about this at all, who they would rather have testing our military systems to make sure they work, the contractor, who has an economic interest in it; the program director, who has an economic interest in getting the program funded; or basically an independent office that was set up by Congress, the Office of Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, I think the answer would be clear. People would want an objective test.

My amendment requires that the Secretary of Defense confirm that the ground-based, midcourse missile defense system has passed these operational tests prior to deployment for initial defensive operations. It is very simple--fly before you buy, test before you deploy, common sense, following the wishes of Congress that knew this was a problem when we set up that office.

Here is why it is important. This amendment is important because the current plan of the Missile Defense Agency does not include any operational testing at any time in the foreseeable future.

Let me say that again. The current plan of the Missile Defense Agency does not include any operational testing at any time in the foreseeable future. And this statement I just made has been confirmed by the Office of Director of Operational Test and Evaluation.

Imagine: We are about to spend $10 billion on this program. It is the biggest program in the defense budget, as I understand it, and we are going to deploy without operational testing.

On December 17, 2002, President Bush announced that the United States will declare a midcourse ballistic missile defense system ready for defense operations at the end of the year. That is interesting. He declared and announced that we would be ready to deploy before the system was tested. He should say: Assuming it passes the tests by the appropriate evaluation agency, which is DOT&E. But he didn't say that. The Pentagon's current plan is to deploy the first interceptor missile in late July, and before the system becomes operational by the end of September when five interceptors are in place at Fort Greeley, AK. The Missile Defense Agency hopes to have a total of 10 interceptor missiles in place by the end of January 5 at both Fort Greeley and Vandenberg Air Force Base in California.

They are moving ahead without any operational testing done by the office that was created to do this.

This plan that I described to you, known as Block 2004, will eventually result in the deployment of 20 missile interceptors by the end of next year.

There is a serious problem here. We have no way of knowing that these interceptor missiles will actually be able to protect us from an incoming ballistic missile attack. The system President Bush is deploying has been tested eight times--not by the Director of the Office of Operational Test and Evaluation, it has been tested by the DOD. The contractor was involved in those tests, and the program director was involved in those tests of the Missile Defense Agency, but not the office that has been created to be the objective tester. The tests were conducted, again, by the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency in cooperation with the contractor--not the DOT&E.

These tests were highly scripted. They occurred in an unrealistic test environment, and only five of the eight were successful.

Here is the GAO report.

The date is April of 2004. This is a relatively new report. In this report, the GAO criticizes the administration's plan, saying:

as a result of testing shortfalls and the limited time

available to test the BMDS [Ballistic Missile Defense System]

being fielded, system effectiveness will be largely unproven

when the initial capability goes on alert at the end of

September 2004.

That is when the initial five missiles will be deployed.

This report from the General Accounting Office, which is the investigative arm of the Congress, goes on to say:

the Missile Defense Agency predicts with confidence that

the September 2004 defensive capability will provide

protection of the United States against limited attacks from

Northeast Asia. However, testing in 2003 did little to

demonstrate the predicted effectiveness of the system's

capability to defeat ballistic missiles as an integrated

system.

And from the GAO, who we pay a lot of money to, to advise us, they go on to say:

None of the components of the defensive capability have yet

to be flight tested in their fielded configuration (i.e.,

using production-representative hardware).

My friends, the GAO has essentially exposed the fact that the President plans a ``Wizard of Oz'' defense. We have seen the Wizard of Oz. That Wizard of Oz was scary, but when you pull back the curtain, it was just some little guy.

I want to see a successful missile defense system. I want to see it work. Ever since I have been in Congress, I have been voting continually for research, research, so we have one system in place that works. It would be the greatest to have. We may eventually have it. I hope to God we do. I am from California. I want a missile defense system. I am worried. I am just as worried, however, that if we tell our people they are defended and we do not have objective testing behind it, it will be a very hard blow to people and a waste of money that, God knows, we need in other areas of the military and in other ways to defend our people from the suitcase bomb or an attack on a nuclear power plant, which we know the terrorists are looking at.

The President's decision, in my view, before the testing is done, is a waste of our resources. The total amount requested for missile defense in 2005 is $10.2 billion, more than any other defense system in one year ever.

To put this $10.2 billion in perspective, let me read the budgets of some of the programs in agencies critical to protecting us from the threat of terrorism. I have a chart listing what we spend in other areas that are key in our fight against terrorism.

The entire missile defense system is $10.2 billion. That includes everything, research and everything else. I am talking about the deployment costs, which are about $3.7 billion of the $10 billion. This chart shows the $10.2 billion, which is the entire missile defense cost. The money we are talking about spending is $3.7 billion to deploy these 20 missiles.

Look what we have spent on the other areas to protect our people. The customs and border protection is $6.2 billion. My colleague, Senator McCain, right now is holding a hearing--unfortunately I could not do it because I had to be here--on our problems at the border, protecting our borders from terrorism. The fact is, we need to spend more in high- tech equipment to better protect our people from terrorists crossing the border. The total is $6.2 billion, compared to $10.2 billion on missile defense; Transportation security, $5.3 billion; Coast Guard, $7.4 billion; FEMA, $4.8 billion; Office of Domestic Preparedness, $3.5 billion. This is what we are talking about spending on this deployment--$3.7 billion of the $10 billion--before it is operationally tested by the office that is supposed to do that.

We know the customs and border protection is the front line in protecting the American public against terrorism. Transportation Security Administration--we all know what happened on 9/11; they are responsible for keeping our airlines safe but also our railroads and our ports secure--$5.3 billion, and we are going to spend $3.7 billion on an untested deployment? Coast Guard, $7.4 billion. Imagine that is what we spend on the Coast Guard, and they are right in the line of fire. I visit my Coast Guard ports all the time. They are the lead Federal agency in maritime safety. They are so important. We spend $7.4 billion. And we are spending $10.2 billion on the entire missile defense and ready to toss out $3.7 billion of that in this initial deployment.

All of FEMA, the lead agency for preparing us to respond to all domestic disasters, including acts of terrorism, $4.8 billion. We are about to spend $3.7 billion on an untested system, and we are spending $4.8 billion on FEMA.

Office of Domestic Preparedness, $3.5 billion, which is less than we will spend on an untested system. They are the

lead agency responsible for preparing the Nation against terrorism by assisting States and local governments in preparing for terrorists acts.

The Presiding Officer must hear the same things I hear at home from the police officers, from nurses, from the first responders, the firefighters. They are hurting. They need our help. Would it not be better at the moment now not to waste $3.7 billion on this initial deployment, if we have that extra funding, but to put it into the fight on terrorism?

My amendment does not cut any money from this program. My amendment does not cut one dollar from the program. However, it says, do not spend the money until the system is operationally tested. We will have other attempts because other people will be taking out some funding. I do not touch the funding. All I say is, test it before you deploy it. If the Office of Operational Test and Evaluation comes back with a good report, then I say please deploy but not until that time.

We are at war with al-Qaida and with terrorism. The only four nations that have ever successfully tested a nuclear capable intercontinental missile are Russia, France, Britain, and China. We are not at war with them.

We will talk about Korea and Iran. There are fears, and I share the fears, that this technology could get into the hands of the wrong countries or somehow a terrorist could get his or her hands on one of these missiles. That is why I want to protect our country against the potential of this kind of a strike. However, I do not want a make- believe system. I do not want a Wizard of Oz system.

I want a system I can look my people in the eye and say: We spent $3.7 billion deploying the first aspects of this system, and we know it works. I think my people deserve to know that.

When I was in the House, I was on the Armed Services Committee, and I worked very hard on procurement reforms. I enjoyed so much being on the Armed Services Committee in the House. I was there for years. We had some wonderful debates. What we found is: ``Fly before you buy'' is essential. And that is all we are saying. We want to know the system works. We want to be able to tell the people the system works. And, clearly, we should look at the threat we face.

Now, the reason I am for this program, the reason I have voted for this program many times for research, is because I want to have a system that works. Why? North Korea. I am very fearful of North Korea. Although I believe we can try our best and do more to negotiate with them, there is no question I am worried about a potential missile system in North Korea.

But here is the issue. We have a capability that is not talked about that much here, but the Pentagon's former Director of DOT&E, Philip Coyle, has said: We would never wait until North Korea has launched a missile attack. ``We'd blow it up on the ground.'' We have the capability to know when these missiles are being moved into place. Let me repeat what Philip Coyle said, the Pentagon's former Director of

Mr. President, the admirals and generals are essentially asking to take that money, that $3.7 billion, out of the $10 billion, and divert it to other programs. I am not doing that. I am simply fencing the money and saying: You can spend it when the tests pass. So they are really asking more than I am doing.

The people who wrote this letter are some of our most distinguished military men and women. I am going to read the names of these generals and admirals:

ADM William J. Crowe, United States Navy, Retired; GEN Alfred G. Hansen, United States Air Force, Retired; GEN Joseph Hoar, U.S. Marine Corps, Retired; LTG Henry E. Emerson, Army, Retired; LTG Robert Gard, Jr., Army, Retired; VADM Carl Hanson, Navy, Retired; LTG James Hollingsworth, Army, Retired; LTG Arlen Jameson, Air Force, Retired; LTG Robert Kelley, Air Force, Retired; LTG John Kjellstrom, Army, Retired; LTG Dennis McAuliffe, Army, retired;--they are all retired, so I will not continue to say that--LTG Charles P. Otstott, Army; LTG Thomas Rienzi, Army; VADM John Shanahan, Navy; LTG Dewitt Smith, Jr., Army; LTG Horace G. Taylor, Army; LTG James Thompson, Army; LTG Alexander Weyand, Army; MG Robert Appleby, Army.

Yes.

Sure.

OK.

I am happy to take another 7, 8 minutes and then finish.

I will finish in 5 minutes.

May I ask the Senator, I do get a vote on this?

The reason I am reading these names is because these are names we know. These are our heroes: Major General Appleby, Major General Boatner, Major General Bradshaw, Major General Brady, Major General Burns, Rear Admiral Center, Major General Crawford, Major General Edmonds, Rear Admiral Elliot, Major General Faith, Rear Admiral Gormley, Major General Griffitts, Rear Admiral Grojean, Major General Haddock, Major General Holbein, Major General Hyman, Major General Jackson, Major General Lawson, Major General Luchsinger, Major General LeCleir, Major General Willoughby, Brigadier General Cannon, Brigadier General Costa, Brigadier General Cowan, Brigadier General Foote, Brigadier General Forney, Brigadier General Grubbs, Brigadier General Hastings, Brigadier General Johns, Brigadier General Roush.

This is not easy for these people to come out here now and do this. They believe, as I do, and as I hope colleagues on both sides of the aisle feel--and I don't know what will happen with this--that with all of the threats we face today, we have to take care of everything. But for goodness' sake, before we make a $3.7 billion deployment decision, let us test the system with the agency that was set up to do it, not with the program that is kind of fighting for its life always because that is what happens around here, whether it is in the military or any service. You can't rest with that and with the contractors that have the economic stake. This separate objective office is the one.

I stand with the scientists who say we need the realistic test. I stand with the 49 former generals and admirals who say the militarily responsible course is not to spend this money until these tests pass. The Pentagon's current Director of the DOT&E, Thomas Christie, says we can't be sure the system will work against a real North Korean missile. So why wouldn't we fly before we buy? Why wouldn't we be sure that we are spending the money for the taxpayers in a wise way?

I want this as much as anybody else. I want this very much to work. But I don't want to spend the money until we know we have tested the system realistically, and that is common sense.

Again, I named the names of these admirals. They want to go even further. They want to postpone this. I am saying let's not take away the money. Keep the money in place. Let's just make sure the appropriate agency does the testing. That appropriate agency is the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation. It is very simple. I hope my colleagues will support this. We are being told by the people who know that it is not ready yet for deployment.

I thank my colleagues for their patience. I yield the floor. I look forward to a good vote.

I am sorry. My staff was pointing out something. You are asking me if what?

Yes.

Absolutely not.

We want operational testing. We want the tests to be done by the appropriate office. That is the purpose of the amendment. That is exactly what the generals are saying. That is what the admirals are saying.

Sure.

Will the Senator yield for a question on that point?

So when Senator Warner says essentially we need to go ahead because we are going to test this once they are deployed, what I hear my colleague saying the Pentagon told him, and they put it in writing, is because of safety concerns there will be no operational testing at those sites; is that correct?

Mr. President, is there any time for me to rebut some of what was said?

Mr. President, I will take this time to rebut some of what has been said.

The amendment I am offering with Senator Levin does not cut one slim dime from the National Missile Defense Program. All it says is, let us make sure the system works before we expend $3.7 billion to deploy it. How people can say that is devastating is beyond belief.

If one wants to talk about devastating, devastating is investing money in something that will not work when it is needed. Devastating is something where the people of this country are told they are protected when they are not because the agency that was set up to test this is not in charge of the operational testing.

The opponents to this amendment also say something else over and over again: It is important we deploy these. Then we will test.

The fact is, the Pentagon themselves--and I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record this Pentagon report in which they say:

Due to safety considerations, no tests are currently

planned to launch interceptors from the operational missile

fields.

Here we have a situation where you have an amendment that does not cut any money from this, that just says fly before you buy. I hope my colleagues will approve it.

I yield the floor.

I thank the Senator.

I think we have had a good debate. I am just saying to colleagues, these are the names of retired admirals and generals you all admire. They are saying we have to delay this deployment because we have no idea that this system works.

To my colleagues who said let's deploy it and then test it, the Pentagon in its own words has said they can't do it. It is not safe. Here it is. They say:

Due to safety considerations, no tests are currently

planned to launch interceptors from the operational missile

fields.

So the Pentagon has said very clearly--and good for them because it would be too dangerous--they are not going to operationally test from the missile fields. So what are we doing? We are investing $3.7 billion out of the $10 billion to move forward with a system that is untested.

For those people who say this is a devastating amendment, why do they support ``fly before you buy,'' which is the way we do things around here? This is a way to get around realistic testing. That doesn't make us any safer; it makes us weaker. It makes us vulnerable.

So I hope you will stand with these 49 generals and admirals and Senator

Levin and me and vote for the Boxer-Levin amendment.

Mr. President, I wish to recognize a constituent, Frank Baker, who will mark his 50th year of exemplary service to the American Legion California Boys State Program.

Since 1935, the Boys State Program has brought together high school boys from across their States to immerse them in a week of education about, and simulation of, their State government. The California program began in 1938,

and Mr. Baker is the second person in the history of the California Boys State program to reach the milestone of 50 years of service.

Mr. Baker joined the California Boys State staff in 1955 as a clerk and in 1958 was named secretary of the program. He supported the counseling staff in delivering excellent programming to the Boys State delegates year after year.

In 1975, Mr. Baker was elevated to the treasurer of the Boys State Program. He became the program administrator in 1982 and has been responsible for overseeing the infrastructure of the Boys State Program. The 2004 California Boys State session will be Mr. Baker's 50th consecutive year of service.

Mr. Baker has been a leader outside of the California Boys State program as well, serving in the U.S. Army's 103rd Infantry in Germany, France, and Italy in World War II. Mr. Baker has been active in the Boy Scouts of America and was involved with the Sea Scouts in the 1940s. Since 1990, Mr. Baker has been a Kiwanis member and has raised money for Kiwanis House, the Just for Kids Program and the Teddy Bear Purchase Program for the Sacramento County Sheriff's Department. He also volunteered his time as a court spokesman for neglected and abused children for 8 years through the court-appointed special advocates of Sacramento.

Mr. Baker began a long teaching career in 1952 when he joined the business department at Sacramento High School. After moving to Hiram Johnson High School--where he taught until his retirement in 1998--he served as chairman of the business department and taught classes at Sacramento City College.

Mr. Baker's actions demonstrate his dedication to serving his country and the State of California, and I offer my hearty congratulations to him on his 50th year of service to the California Boys State program.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay my respects to one of California's own, President Ronald Reagan.

I first met President Reagan right after I was elected to Congress in 1982. We were a large Democratic freshman class, and when I was invited to the White House, I wondered how President Reagan would greet us. After all, he had campaigned hard for a Republican Congress, and having lost an election myself I knew the feeling of disappointment. When we arrived at the White House, President Reagan could not have been more gracious to us; the same for Mrs. Reagan. I still have the photo from that evening hanging in my home office.

Twenty-two years ago, Ronald Reagan taught me that you can disagree without being disagreeable, that you could set aside those disagreements even though they were deep.

President Reagan once said:

A lot of trouble in the world would disappear if we were

talking to each other instead of about each other.

He believed if we were all respectful and pleasant to one another, we could find those areas of common ground. We can reach across the aisle. We can get things done. Believe me, that was a good lesson for me and for all of us that evening because clearly, in the Senate, with the rules of the Senate, the only way to get things done is by working together. I look at the occupant of the Chair, and I know that with our disagreements on many issues, we have come together on a few occasions, and we have won for our constituents and for this country.

When I look back to President Reagan's record, I realize that not only did he bring this kind of an attitude of working together to Washington, but that had been his hallmark in California as well. As a Republican Governor, he was working with a Democratic State legislature. So it seems President Reagan had to learn how to do this both in the State and in the Nation's Capital.

In those years as Governor, in keeping with the values and wishes of most Californians, he helped to establish the Redwood National Park. He regulated auto emissions to reduce pollution. He signed a bill that liberalized a woman's right to choose. He opposed the State proposition that discriminated against teachers based on sexual orientation. You can see Governor Reagan was willing to reach across and find consensus.

Ronald Reagan, of course, did continue to reach across the aisle when he became President. Although there were serious disagreements, he worked closely with a Democratic House to ratify and sign important arms control agreements, increasing funds for math and science education, reauthorizing the Superfund hazardous waste cleanup program, which is so important. The basis of the program is the polluter should pay. Interestingly, we don't seem to have that kind of support today.

President Reagan once said: ``There is no limit to what a man can do or where he can go, if he doesn't mind who gets the credit.'' And how important that quote is when it comes to politics. President Reagan was a conservative. He was not an ideologue. He fulfilled a campaign promise to appoint the first woman to the Supreme Court. He chose Sandra Day O'Connor as the first woman Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, even though she was considered too moderate by many conservatives. He tried to abolish the National Endowment for the Arts but, after losing that fight, he moved on. I remember that. He moved on without trying to force the issue through the backdoor. I respect that.

I remember the fight to keep the National Endowment for the Arts. Many Republicans in my State didn't agree with President Reagan. They mobilized with the Democrats. President Reagan said, Well, this is what I think. He went forward, and when he lost, that was it.

Of course, there are other issues of disagreement--from offshore oil drilling to the role of the national Government, to the fight against AIDS, to policies in Central America. Those disagreements were deep, but they were never taken personally by President Reagan. He and House Speaker Tip O'Neill were genuinely fond of each other. They often shared a drink after work, and they laughed after a day of locking horns. Their good nature was infectious. It raised the level of comity throughout the Nation's Capital. How I long for those days. It is time that in the spirit of Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill, we see more bipartisan spirit in our work.

In California, there are tributes to Ronald Reagan running around the clock. I know it is true nationally, but because he was our Governor and we are so proud he is part of our legacy, we are seeing and listening to Ronald Reagan's stories and Ronald Reagan quotes. I found one of these very interesting.

There was a question asked to President Reagan after he had completed his 8 years in office. The question was: What do you most want to be remembered for? His answer was this: The millions of jobs that were created while he was President and America regaining respect in the world. Millions of jobs created and America regaining respect in the world. You think about how universal those two achievements are because right now that is a lot of the focus of attention--job creation and respect in the world. It is interesting how prophetic those words are.

I personally believe that 50 years from now, if not now, President Reagan will be remembered for his focus on freedom for the people behind the Iron Curtain. He saw in Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev a man he could successfully challenge to step to the plate. And when President Reagan said, tear down this wall, he said it directly to Mr. Gorbachev. He touched Mr. Gorbachev, and he touched America. He touched people around the world.

In a moving eulogy in yesterday's New York Times Mr. Gorbachev wrote:

Reagan was a man of the right but while adhering to his

convictions, with which one could agree or disagree, he was

not dogmatic. He was looking for negotiations and for

cooperation.

In that, you have to understand that respect for other people and their ideas, the ability to step into their shoes is very important.

We name buildings and rooms and public places after leaders, and we have named many public places after Ronald Reagan. But I truly believe that now the greatest thing we can do in Ronald Reagan's memory is to find a cure for the disease that took his life and took him away from his loved ones and the world stage long before his physical life ended.

Alzheimer's disease is a plague that ravages millions of Americans and those who love them. Caused by abnormal plaques and tangled nerve fibers in the brain, the disease attacks the cells that control thought, memory, and language. The brain, if you look at it, becomes more and more like a child's brain. It kills nerve cells that are vital to memory. If you think about it, when you lose your memory, you lose who you are. And to see someone like Ronald Reagan, who held all the power for 8 years that anyone could ever dream to hold, and to have him not be able to remember that is a tragedy.

Alzheimer's lowers the level of chemicals that carry messages between nerve cells and the brain. The progress of Alzheimer's is usually slow, but it is inexorable. Beginning with mild symptoms, such as forgetfulness, Alzheimer's gradually robs its victims of the ability to think clearly, speak clearly, understand others, or care for themselves in any way.

Ten years ago Ronald Reagan knew he was battling Alzheimer's. He knew he was losing the battle. In an act of tremendous courage and in a handwritten open letter, he told the American people he was suffering from the illness. He wrote:

I now begin the journey that will lead me into the sunset

of my life.

And he movingly wrote:

I know that for America there will always be a bright dawn

ahead.

So even in his darkest hour, President Reagan's eternal optimism shone through.

Nancy Reagan stood by her husband throughout this long ordeal, protecting

him in his most vulnerable time. In recent years, she has become a leading advocate of increased funding for medical research to fight Alzheimer's and other diseases. She has been brave and courageous in her advocacy.

Ironically, just a few weeks ago, I wrote an open letter to her praising her for her strength and moving forward to use her considerable influence to push forward stem cell research.

To honor Ronald Reagan and relieve the suffering of millions of American families, we must pursue every avenue of research and treatment for Alzheimer's and other diseases.

In memory of Ronald Reagan and all of the families who have lost loved ones to Alzheimer's, let us seek a brighter dawn for Alzheimer's victims and their families.

So, Mr. President, Californians are speaking across party lines for a man who was able to set aside ideology to make progress, to work with those who might not have agreed with him on every point. I think it is a terrific lesson to all of us in this time and in this place in our Nation's history.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, it is my honor to speak in memory of Harold ``Hal'' Rubin, a professor and activist who will always be remembered for his love of family, politics and the environment.

Hal Rubin was an excellent example of a citizen who consistently worked to make his community a better place. Mr. Rubin's love for politics motivated his involvement in numerous local issues and political races in Placer County. He was passionate about issues such as campaign spending limits, the environment and preserving the rural characteristics of Placer County.

Hal had an exceptional career as a professor. He began his teaching career as a professor of English and Political Science at Sierra Community College. At Sierra, he was voted by the students as their favorite professor. He continued his teaching career as a professor of journalism at California State University, Sacramento.

His strong writing skills coupled with his concern for the environment led him to a job as a senior technical writer for what is now GenCorp Incorporated, where he wrote about nuclear propulsion in the Nation's space program. Those traits combined with his interest in politics also led him to a freelance writing career, with articles published in various California magazines.

In addition to his dedication to politics, teaching and the environment, Hal was devoted to serving his country. His service during World War II as a member of the Army Air Force was an act of selfless dedication to protecting our Nation. He also served as a member of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Post 1942.

Hal Rubin committed his life to his community, his Nation and most of all his family. He touched the lives of many, and his impact on his community will be long remembered.

Mr. President, since 2002, I have raised serious concerns about this administration's policy on Iraq, including the President's failure to plan for post-war Iraq and his inability to convince much of the world to share the burden by providing troops and funding.

However, I will support the President's request for $25 billion to support our military men and women who are serving so bravely under extremely difficult conditions.

When the President initially requested this additional funding on May 12, it was a blank check. It allowed the President to spend funds on any account within the DoD for any purpose having to do with Iraq or Afghanistan. Because of the good work of many in this Chamber, on both sides of the aisle, the Warner amendment is a significant improvement on the President's initial request.

The Warner amendment ensures that $20 billion of the $25 billion request will be spent on the operation and maintenance accounts of the Armed Forces and that $2 billion will be dedicated solely to the military personnel accounts. This is vastly different from the President's request, which would have given him the authority to spend the $25 billion in any manner in which he thought appropriate.

The Warner amendment also contains an important provision that requires a monthly report to Congress on the use of this $25 billion authority. With this reporting requirement, Congress can ensure that every penny is being used for the well-being of our military men and women who are serving this country with great honor.

Mr. President, before the Memorial Day recess, I joined with Senators Hatch, Bingaman, and Hutchison in introducing the Commission to Study the Potential Creation of a National Museum of the American Latino Community Act of 2004.

This legislation would create a national commission to study and plan for a National Museum of the American Latino, possibly in Washington, DC. Congressman Xavier Becerra and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus have sponsored companion legislation in the House.

Throughout our Nation's history, Latinos have enriched our culture and economy, and contributed to our national defense. In every American war and conflict, Latinos have served honorably next to their fellow Americans. It is time for our Nation's history and public institutions to fully recognize and celebrate our Latino community.

Though Latinos have been the largest ethnic minority group in California for some time, the Census Bureau recently reported that Latinos are now the largest minority group in the country and have grown in population in every region. As of July 2002, there were 38.8 million Latinos in the United States. One out of every three of these Latinos is under the age of 18. Also, the southern states other than Texas have seen the population of Latinos double between 1990 and 2000. The size, youth, and growth of this population ensure that American Latinos will continue to play a critical role in every region of the country and in every aspect of American life. As a result, a greater understanding of this population and its history will benefit all Americans.

The American Latino experience in the United States has a history as long as the Nation is old. From families with Puerto Rican and Dominican origins in New York to those with Cuban blood in Miami to the giant Mexican American and Central American communities in California and numerous other communities in every region of the country--American Latinos share a host of common values and similar experiences. A National Museum of the American Latino would help the larger American family celebrate this community's history and diversity.

The Smithsonian Institution is the world's largest museum and research complex, with 16 museums in the District of Columbia and New York City. The Smithsonian Institution museums, especially those on the National Mall, play a unique and important role in educating visitors to the Nation's capital about America's history, arts, and culture. The American people and international visitors recognize the Smithsonian Institution as the premier American museum, representing the vast diversity of cultural history of the United States. It is worth examining the potential for adding a National Museum of the American Latino to the Smithsonian family.

After extensive dialogue, conferences, and collaboration among educators, scholars, and community leaders as well as museums, universities, cultural, and public institutions, a task force appointed to examine the Smithsonian Institution's representation of American Latinos in its permanent exhibits and other public programs published ``Willful Neglect: The Smithsonian Institution and U.S. Latinos'' in May 1994 and ``Toward a Shared Vision: U.S. Latinos and the Smithsonian Institution'' in October 1997. The reports indicate that the Smithsonian historically had a poor record of representing Latinos. This criticism led to the creation of the Smithsonian's Center for Latino Initiatives in 1998.

The Center for Latino Initiatives has increased the profile of Latino arts and culture and deserves credit for promoting diversity and understanding of American Latino culture among the Smithsonian's visitors. The Center's short history has shown that American Latino exhibits and programs are well received by the public and by the Latino community, which benefits from having some representation at the Smithsonian. Still, the level of representation at the Smithsonian of the Latino community is far from where it should be given the American Latino history, demography, and contributions to the American cultural landscape.

I thank Senators Hatch, Bingaman, and Hutchison for joining with me in introducing this bill. I look forward to working with them to pass this legislation, and I encourage all my colleagues to join us in this effort.

Mr. President, Frances Preston, the president and chief executive officer of BMI announced in April that she is stepping down from her leadership role at BMI. Though I know she will continue to play a role at BMI, I take this opportunity to commend her for distinguished and dedicated service to the writers, composers, and publisher of BMI, as well as to the broader creative community.

For many years, Mrs. Preston has successfully guided BMI to a position of international leadership in the entertainment industry. She is one of the industry's most widely admired executives. Fortune magazine has called her ``one of the true powerhouses of the pop music business.''

In large part as a result of her business and creative acumen, BMI today represents legendary artists ranging from Sting to Paul Simon to Shania Twain. And, in the world of public policy, Mrs. Preston has been a strong voice for creators' rights. She also maintains a passionate dedication to a number of charities and serves in a volunteer capacity as the president of the largest medical charity, the T.J. Martell Foundation for Leukemia, Cancer and AIDS Research.

The list of awards Mrs. Preston has received for excellence in industry and public service is too long to list here. They range from being the first non-performing woman invited to join New York's prestigious Friar's Club in 1993 to the American Women in Radio and Television's Outstanding Achievement Award in 1998 to induction in the Broadcasting and Cable Hall of Fame in 1999. More recent honors include the Touchstone Advocate Award from Women in Music in October 2003 and the NARAS Heroes Award from the New York Chapter of the Recording Academy in December 2003.

Frances Preston has been successful in business, a leader in her community, and generous in her service. She leaves a lasting legacy of leadership and excellence.

Mr. President, Senator Kyl has offered an amendment expressing the sense of the Senate that an excise tax should be imposed on any lawyer's contingency fees in tobacco cases when those fees exceed the equivalent of $20,000 per hour.

I oppose this amendment because it singles out only one group of people who will be subjected to a government-

imposed salary cap--lawyers who go after the tobacco companies.

The Kyl amendment does not apply to the CEO of Halliburton or Enron. It does not apply to the CEO of an HMO or a drug company. It does not even apply to lawyers who defend tobacco companies.

I would be happy to consider a fair and balanced amendment. But this one-sided amendment that goes after lawyers because they go after the tobacco companies should be defeated.

Mr. President, the famous poster of ``Rosie the Riveter,'' created by J. Howard Miller in 1943, was quite well known throughout America during World War II. The slogan on the poster--``WE CAN DO IT!''--captured the spirit and dedication of our Nation's women during World War II. ``Rosie the Riveter'' became a nickname for the women who entered the workforce during the war.

World War II profoundly changed the role and status of American women. During this war, over 6 million women joined the workforce, filling jobs that had been traditionally held by men. For the first time in history, women in large numbers worked to produce ships, planes, tanks, trucks, guns and ammunition that were essential to the war effort. They worked in factories while raising their kids--often by themselves as their husbands were fighting abroad.

In California, women worked in factories across the state, from the Douglas Aircraft Company plant in Long Beach to the Ford Assembly plant in Richmond, CA.

These women's contributions on the homefront were invaluable to our nation's victory in World War II. As we approach Memorial Day--and the dedication of the World War II Memorial--I want to express my gratitude to our Nation's ``Rosies'' for their effort in helping America win the war.

In 2000, Congress enacted legislation, introduced by Representative George Miller, to create the Rosie the Riveter/World War II Home Front National Historical Park in Richmond, CA. Senator Feinstein and I introduced the Senate companion bill.

Richmond, CA was chosen as the site since the city played a significant role in the World War II effort on the homefront. Fifty-six war industries operated in Richmond, and the Kaiser Shipyards produced more ships than any other shipyard in the United States. The Ford Assembly Plant prepared for shipment overseas more than 20 percent of all tanks and other combat vehicles used by the United States during World War II.

The Rosie the Riveter/World War II Home Front National Historical Park is the first park created to commemorate the contributions of men and women on the U.S. home front during World War II and to preserve the historic sites, structures and stories associated with World War

Mr. President, I am proud to be a cosponsor of this important amendment to look at closing excess overseas military bases before moving forward on any future round of base closures in this country.

Over the past several years, I have consistently opposed additional rounds of base closures. The loss of a military base can have a devastating impact on local communities. This is not the time to subject our fragile national economy to the impact of another round-- especially when the DoD is threatening to close one-quarter of our domestic bases.

In addition, I object the Department of Defense request for more base closures when it has failed to clean up former military bases shuttered during the previous four rounds. It will be decades before environmental remediation is complete at some former bases in California. The DoD must meet its responsibilities to the people of California before moving forward with any future rounds of base closures.

Given the ongoing war on terrorism and our current military operations in Iraq, now is not the time to close more bases. We must ensure that we have sufficient military assets to meet our growing challenges. At a time that our forces are stretched thin, it does not make any sense to waste resources in going forward with next year's round of base closures. These are uncertain times and it is impossible to know what the force structure of the U.S. military will be in the near future.

This amendment is a compromise. It allows the base closure process to move forward next year--but only for our installations overseas. It is logical to look at excess capacity overseas before looking at our domestic bases here at home.

I am proud to cosponsor this important amendment and urge my colleagues to support it.