Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I wish to share with my colleagues the memory of a remarkable man, Mr. Wyman Hicks of Marin County. Mr. Hicks passed away on February 4, 2009, at the age of 90. Mr. Hicks was a passionate activist, educator, and inventor who contributed selflessly to the military, government, and his community. Wyman Hicks was born in Oakland, CA, on June 25, 1918. A bright child whose family experienced the hardships of poverty, Mr. Hicks developed a strong sense of justice and community service early in life. While attending the University of California at Berkeley, Mr. Hicks spent his summers in Alaska helping laborers and workers form a union. In 1938, Mr. Hicks traveled to Germany, where he helped German Jews find sponsors to help them escape to America. After receiving warnings from the U.S. consul that the Gestapo wanted to arrest him, Mr. Hicks returned to California to help farm workers in the Central Valley. During the Second World War, Mr. Hicks enlisted in the Army. He became a captain in the Signal Corps serving in New Guinea and the Philippines, and worked to rebuild Japan after the war. Mr. Hicks returned to Berkeley on the GI bill, where he received his bachelor's and master's degrees in economics. Later, as the director of new product development at Crown Zellerbach, Mr. Hicks contributed to the development of the strap-handled shopping bag. Wyman Hicks demonstrated a lifelong dedication to education, community governance, and civil rights. He served on the Sausalito City Council and the Bay Area Air Quality District Board, and was an active member of the American Civil Liberties Union and the Congress of Racial Equality. Mr. Hicks served as president of the Marin County Day School, and later became a professor in the management department of Sonoma State College. In 1987 he married Diana King. From 1988 until 1991, Mr. Hicks was a member of my staff. His service to the U.S. Congress was invaluable, and for that I am grateful. Mr. Hicks was a generous man who dedicated his life to public service. He will be deeply missed. Wyman is survived by his wife Diana King; his sons Kevin Hicks and Todd Hicks; his wife's sons Avi Rappoport and Richard Haven, and his five grandchildren.

Mrs. BOXER

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, we have a series of votes. I believe the first one will be the Murkowski amendment. I rise to speak against it. I think if you vote for the Murkowski amendment, what you are endorsing is a process that is something that should not be encouraged, which is a President in the waning hours doing a midnight regulation to overturn a law. Let me repeat that. What Senator Murkowski is doing is she is removing language in this bill that reversed two midnight regulations the Bush administration put into place, without proper hearing, without going through the comment period the way they should, ignoring the public, ignoring the science, and, in essence, doing a backdoor repeal of the Endangered Species Act. Now, that is not right. It happens to be that one of these dealt with the polar bear, which, as you probably know, was listed as a threatened species by the Bush administration. But then people looked at the Endangered Species Act and said: My goodness, we do not know what can happen if we now declare that the polar bear is not only threatened but endangered. We better take away the protection of the Endangered Species Act from the polar bear. Whether you care about the survival of the polar bear, as do I, or whether you do not, it seems to me what the Murkowski amendment does is to say that we approve of the President of any party, acting in a capricious way, overturning a law that was passed by Republicans and Democrats. She not only deals with the polar bear, but she also deals with another very important rule that says, before there is a major development, Federal agencies have to check with the Fish and Wildlife Service to make sure we are not destroying God's creation. I do not understand the thinking behind it. We have laws in place to protect endangered species. If we do not like the Endangered Species Act, if we have decided we do not care about polar bears or we do not care about bald eagles or we do not care about any of this, we want to do away with it, let Lisa Murkowski and any of my colleagues come and move to overturn and overrule and abolish the Endangered Species Act. But let's not send a signal tonight that Presidents of either party can, at the waning hours of their Presidency--and I do not care if it is a Democrat or Republican--can willy-nilly, with the stroke of a pen, decide to do away with the protections of an act that was a landmark environmental law. If you do not like the law, come here, tell me why, let's talk. Maybe we can fix parts of it, maybe we cannot. Maybe we can rework parts of it, maybe we cannot. But let's not allow Presidents to simply do away with these laws when they may prove to be inconvenient. I hope we will vote against the Murkowski amendment, whether we want to protect the polar bear or we do not, whether we care about the bald eagle or we do not. That is up to us to decide. But let's not say tonight in this vote that we approve of an Executive doing away with the protections of Federal law with the stroke of a pen without a hearing, without the comments, without the scientists, without working with Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle. I hope we will have a strong vote against the Murkowski amendment. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mrs. BOXER. I am sorry to take back the time so quickly, but I want to place in the Record a number of editorials from around the country that have come out against the Murkowski amendment. One is from the Miami Herald entitled ``Who needs those pesky scientists?'' Another is entitled ``Endangered Process, Proposed rule changes to the Endangered Species Act could do lasting harm in the natural world.'' ``Unnecessary ESA Rewrite,'' that is from the Bangor Daily News. ``Gutting the law'' is from St. Louis Today. ``Endangered law: Bush rule change ignores science--again.'' That is from the Salt Lake Tribune. Here is one from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer: ``Endangered species: A 9-second rewrite.'' ``A complete sham, Public comments given curt review in rush to dilute the Endangered Species Act.'' That is from the Las Vegas Sun. ``Shredder is overheating in Bush's final months.'' That is from the Virginian Pilot. These editorials were written when George Bush issued the executive orders. Senator Murkowski's amendment would say: Fine, let it stand. The underlying bill reverses these midnight regulations and goes back to the status quo ante and back to the regular order. I ask unanimous consent the editorials be printed in the Record.

Mrs. BOXER. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. BOXER. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 613

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, the fiscal year 2009 Omnibus appropriations bill would provide $5 million for design and real estate activities and pump supply elements for the Yazoo Basin, Yazoo Backwater Pumping Plant and for activities associated with the Theodore Roosevelt National Wildlife Refuge. I want to clarify that nothing in the language is intended to: (1) override or otherwise affect the final determination that was effective August 31, 2008, and published in the Federal Register on September 19, 2008, of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act that prohibits the use of wetlands and other waters of the United States in Issaquena County, MS, as a disposal site for the discharge of dredged or fill material for the construction of the proposed Yazoo Backwater Area Pumps Project, (2) create or imply any exception with respect to the project to the requirements of the Clean Water Act, including any exceptions from the prohibitions and regulatory requirements of the Clean Water Act under section 404(r); or (3) affect the application of any other environmental laws with respect to the project. As chairman of the committee with jurisdiction over the Clean Water Act and authorizations for the civil works program of the Corps of Engineers, I believe it is critical that our environmental laws be adhered to in the planning, construction, and operation and maintenance of all Corps of Engineers' projects.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I think it is a good time to take stock of where we are on this bill and to give my thoughts and feelings to my colleagues on why it is so important to get it done and move it swiftly. The bill that is before us is unfinished business. It is an Omnibus appropriations bill that finishes up the funding for this year. The reason we are in this situation is for a variety of reasons, including an election, and the appropriations bills did not get done. Some of them did, but most of them did not get done. This bill wraps them up in a package, and here is where we are. We have two choices: Either we pass this bill the way it is or we go back to the continuing resolution which takes us back a year and a half ago. It is very important for us to consider that point because a year and a half ago, life in America was very different. A year and a half ago, we were not in the jam we are in now economically. We did not see homes being lost at such a rapid rate. We did not see unemployment figures going into the double digits in some of our States, including California, which I am so proud to represent, my State. But it has over 10 percent unemployment at this time. If we go backward, as Senator McCain is suggesting, and other colleagues, if we go backward to the continuing resolution approach where we ignore everything that has happened, then we have a budget for this year that is irrelevant in many aspects. Why do I say that? In this particular omnibus bill--which I am sure has flaws, because nothing in life is perfect--we do address the housing crisis. In this omnibus bill, we do give the SEC, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the funding it needs to move against these Ponzi schemes and these frauds that are being perpetrated on the people. In this bill, we do more for education. We do more for health care. In this bill, we step up to the best of our ability to address some of these problems. We know that if any of these amendments are adopted, it is going to weigh this bill down because the House has acted and said basically: This is last year's business; we don't want to get bogged down with it. Either take it or leave it. That is where we are. As I have said often on this floor, we usually do not have a chance to get the perfect bill around here. It is very difficult to get the perfect bill, unless each of us wrote it his or her own way. Then it would be perfect for us. Clearly, there are issues with this bill. But I want to say again, if you were sitting with your family and you went back to last year's budget and all of a sudden you realized that in the last 12 months, things had radically changed in your family--let's say you had a child who got sick with a terrible disease, let's say that your grandma had to go into a nursing home and she needed certain things--you would realize that last year's budget does not fit what your requirements are. You would have to address your child's health, your grandma's situation to be relevant for the year. It doesn't always mean spending more money. I am not suggesting that at all. But this omnibus bill does respond to the needs of our people. Put that together with the stimulus bill, which is finally beginning to bear fruit out there--and I am excited about it because we are starting to see the funding flow to our States, we are starting to see people get back to work. Once we do this, it is another boost to the people of our great country. These amendments that are coming at us at the end of the day, I believe many of them are meant to weigh this bill down, to take this bill off course. I am going to talk about a couple of those amendments. Senator Coburn has an amendment for he says, the worst projects in the world--whatever he calls it. He is going after them. And one of those projects that he picks is one I was proud to get in here. So I want to talk about it because I am proud of it. The way Senator Coburn describes it, you wouldn't know what I did. He says there is money in the bill for the Great Park in Orange County. But what he doesn't say is there is funding in here, and it is not that much funding compared to a lot of these items--$475,000 to restore the El Toro Marine Corps Air Station hangar No. 244. This hangar was opened in 1943 to house aircraft during World War II. The hangar is being renovated. It is being turned into a military history museum and a welcoming center for the park. This particular $475,000 is not going for anything other than the renovation of this hangar to bring it back to life, to serve as a tribute to our veterans and to their military service. It will be on the site of what used to be a leading military installation on the west coast. Millions of U.S. military personnel during World War II, Korea, Vietnam, and the Cold War passed through El Toro. This base reuse project honors our military history and the service and the sacrifice of our military men and women. This is not the first time my Republican friends have gone after veterans. I had another funding request. We were able to win that one, and we will win this one, too. I believe it. They were going after a program to help disabled veterans get back to a normal life. They actually did that. But we beat them then, and we will beat them now. The hangar needs a number of repairs and upgrades to make it suitable for public use. This deals with the upgrade of electricity, fire safety systems. And 100 jobs will be created. Not bad. Mr. President, 100 jobs will be created through the rehab of this building, and another 10 to 20 full-time jobs will be created to staff the facility when it is built. Here is the thing. Orange County, in which this particular project resides, is a Republican county. Registered Republicans outnumber registered Democrats by 235,000 voters, and they voted for this project 58 to 42 percent in an election where 500,000 votes were cast. Yet I have a Senator who comes on the floor and tries to say this is some frivolous, horrible project. I resent it, and so do the veterans resent it. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a series of letters from veterans very concerned about Senator Coburn's amendment.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, here is one letter. It is to Members of Congress signed ``Semper Fi, Clifton Wallace.'' He is a retired marine. He says: I'd like to publicly add my emphatic support for the project to renovate Hangar 244 at the former Marine Corps Station El Toro, California now the Orange County Great Park. I served as a pilot . . . from 1977 until I retired in 1999 and feel it is extremely important that Hangar 244 be renovated and restored to its historical condition. Hangar 244 is an original hangar from the 1940s and the last remaining historic hangar at the Great Park. It must be renovated and preserved to not only preserve the building but also the heritage of five decades of service to our nation's defense. . . . He says: On October 2, 2008, the Orange County Great Park Corporation conducted an ``El Toro Homecoming'' event which honored veterans from World War II that were stationed at [this base]. Several hundred WWII veterans attended this historically important and emotional tribute conducted in Hangar 244 resulting in rich memories and moving stories by the men and women who served our nation during this time of great need. I strongly encourage support for the Hangar 244 renovation project and strongly request that the funds [be there]. That is one. And this goes on veteran after veteran. Senator Coburn comes to the floor and talks about the Great Park and the free balloon rides that the kids have there. What does that have to do with this line item that turns this hangar into a museum for those who put their life on the line? I will say, Senator Coburn has gotten them so riled up and so worked up and so upset. For what reason? None that I can see. So here is a circumstance where we have a line item our veterans want. One of them talks about visiting Europe and saying how much more the Europeans have preserved these memories of their fighting men and women compared to our country and he begs Senators not to strip this out. Here we have a circumstance where Senator Coburn is saying I have a line item that is about ``the Great Park,'' but he does not say what the purpose of the line item is: to restore the hangar and turn it into a military museum and a visitor center to celebrate those who have given so much to our Nation. Then we have another amendment by Senator Murkowski. What she wants to do is go back to the bad old days of the Friday night midnight rules that the Bush administration took at the very end of their days here. The midnight rules were put in place and ran roughshod over the rights of the public to participate in the rulemaking process. The language in the bill goes back to the status quo ante. In other words, it goes back to before the Bush administration issued its midnight rules. On December 11, 2008, almost 35 years to the day after the Endangered Species Act became law, and after the Republicans lost the election, the Bush administration issued a midnight rule which allows Federal agencies to decide unilaterally that consultations with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service are not necessary when there is any type of development proposal. That midnight rule made a mockery of the process we are supposed to follow. According to press reports, a Department of Interior e-mail indicated the Fish and Wildlife Service received 300,000 comments on the proposed rule. The agency reviewed 200,000 of these comments in 32 hours. This is an average of 6,000 comments every hour. Let's face it, Mr. President, I don't care how many people you had looking at these comments, it is not possible that they could have reviewed the outcry from all over the country. Now, who agrees with me? Dozens of groups. I am going to read some of the groups that said: No, don't do this. Yet they did it anyway: The Audubon, American Rivers, Arizona Wilderness Coalition, Californians for Western Wilderness, Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife, Endangered Species Coalition, Friends of Red Rock Canyon, Friends of the Missouri Breaks Monument, Grand Canyon Wildlands Council, the Trust for Public Land, the Wilderness Society, Union of Concerned Scientists, World Wildlife Fund, Partnership for the National Trails System, Natural Resources Defense Council, Oregon Natural Desert Association, National Trust for Historic Preservation . . . I am not reading them all, Mr. President, so I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the entire list.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, you have the Bush administration, after they lost the election, take this step, not even looking at the peer- reviewed scientific evidence. The CRS--the Congressional Research Service--said there appears to be little additional protections by this act. So they had two of these midnight rules. One dealt with the consultations they are supposed to have with environmental agencies before permits are given; the second one had to do with the polar bear. The Bush administration determined that the polar bear is a threatened species, and we all know, just from a little bit of reading or watching TV, that the polar bear is endangered or, I would say, certainly threatened because the ice habitat is melting literally under their feet. The Endangered Species Act applies to the polar bear. Oh, no, the Bush administration said, we are going to deny key protections for the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act. So they unilaterally decided by a rule that the only thing that will apply to the polar bear is marine mammal protection, not the Endangered Species Act, and the Bush administration put in this special rule without any notice or comment. They simply decided they wanted to eliminate the ESA's protections for the polar bear, and once again they ran roughshod over the process. So in this omnibus bill, this is all we do. We say let's go back to regular order. Let's go back to the status quo ante. Let's go back to the way it was before these midnight rules were passed. I am very disappointed we have to vote on this because I think it is a matter of common sense and pride in the place we work. We need to follow a process. It has nothing to do with how one feels about the polar bear. Frankly, I am heartbroken when I see what is happening to the polar bear. Other people may not be moved by it, may not be touched by it. But it doesn't matter how one feels about the polar bear. What matters is that we stand for the laws we passed in this great country under Republican and Democratic administrations, and the Endangered Species Act was one of those. If we see it isn't working, we can take steps, but let's not shortcut the process. So I hope we will oppose the Murkowski amendment. Again, not everybody will agree with me the polar bear deserves protection under ESA. Not everybody will agree with me that before a permit is granted there ought to be consultation with Fish and Wildlife. Frankly, I think that is a very modest and moderate position to take and a commonsense position. But don't support an amendment which just says: To heck with what the public says. We don't care. It doesn't matter. Cut it short. Remove the Endangered Species Act. Remove the consultation process. That is not a way to go, and especially for the Bush administration to do it after the election, on one of those late-night announcements. Let's give this administration a chance to take a look at both of these rules, take a look at making sure the scientists are listened to, the public is listened to. So, again, in closing, I want to say this in summing up. Senator Coburn has attacked the veterans in my State by calling a line item in this bill one of the worst projects in this bill. He actually did. The veterans in my State are up in arms, and I put the letters in the Record and I hope we will vote against the Coburn amendment. The way he has presented it is so unfair to my veterans. He talks about free balloon rides and the Great Park. The funding here is simply to refurbish a historic hangar, the only hangar at El Toro that can be preserved to remember these veterans. So I hope we will vote that down, and I hope we will vote down the Murkowski amendment because if you vote for her amendment, friends, what you are saying is the process should be truncated; that it doesn't matter who the President is-- President Obama. In other words, if you vote for this as a process, you are saying to this new President: Well, we support your being able to just decide whatever you want; to ignore the public comments, ignore the scientists; just get up and do whatever you want at midnight. I think that is wrong, and I don't care if the President is Republican or Democrat, we shouldn't do it that way. It isn't the right way to do it. So I hope we will take a stand against that kind of government, and I hope we will take a stand in favor of my veterans. I hope we can, in fact, pass this bill and get on with our business because the option is to go back to a bill that was written--basically, it goes back to the old budget, before we had all the problems we have now. I think it is looking backwards. I think it is putting our government in reverse at a time when we need to move forward with confidence. I believe passing this bill is an important part of what we need to do this week. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER. Reserving the right to object, I have not seen those modifications. Now I am being told they are very minor. In that case I will not object.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 4, 2009, at 9:30 a.m. in room 216 of the Hart Senate office building.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 4, 2009, at 10 a.m., in room 215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 4, 2009, at 2:30 p.m.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 4, 2009, at 9 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Where Were the Watchdogs? Systemic Risk and the Breakdown of Financial Governance.''

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Getting to the Truth Through a Nonpartisan Commission of Inquiry'' on Wednesday, March 4, 2009, at 10 a.m., in room SD-106 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 4, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Tax Haven Banks and U.S. Tax Compliance--Obtaining the Names of U.S. Clients with Swiss Accounts.''

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 4, 2009 from 10 a.m.-12 p.m. in Dirksen 562.

Mrs. BOXER

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

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I have been listening to the various colleagues on the Republican side who are continuing to be the party of ``nope'' instead of the party of ``hope.'' I came to the floor to say that it is very easy to say no to this and no to that. But I have to tell you, the American people need leadership. When you say ``nope, nope, nope,'' it means you are in fact endorsing the status quo, and the status quo is a major problem. I see my friend from Washington on the floor. I know she had intended to speak. I will be glad to stop at this time and ask unanimous consent that following her remarks, I be recognized.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues on the other side for giving us this little extra time. I intend to speak about 5 minutes. If the Chair will tell me when I have a minute to go, I would appreciate it. Mr. President, before Senator Murray leaves the floor, I wish to thank her for her very clear explanation as to the choice that is before us. If I could restate it in my own way, it is a choice right now that Senator McCain is giving us through his particular amendment, which would give us an option to go back to the budget of 2008 instead of moving forward with a current budget that reflects the needs and priorities of our Nation right now. I do not have to tell you what has happened to our country in the last several months and in the last year. We are seeing an unprecedented recession. My personal belief is we are going to get out of this. My personal belief is there are some signs out there even in my State, which is struggling mightily with an over 10 percent unemployment rate, we see some small signs here of life. For example, sales of existing homes in California went up 100 percent in January over the year before. I might say these are mostly sales of foreclosed homes. This is a good thing. We are looking for a bottom. But if we go back to old policies, if we go back to a budget that doesn't reflect the realities we face now, we are going backward. So we passed a stimulus package--and I am so grateful we did that. Our President led us in that. Democrats stuck together. We got three independent-thinking Republicans to join us, and we challenged the status quo and we passed it. And now today we are facing another such choice between a budget of the past offered to us by Senator McCain, and a budget of the present. Senator Murray was eloquent in going through all of the things--not all of the things, but some of the things. I am going to talk about a couple of others. The Consumer Product Safety Commission gets an increase. If we go back to the old bill, as Senator McCain wants, we do not get that increase. What are we doing over there in the Consumer Product Safety Commission? Protecting our children from dangerous toys. Senator Murray talked about families losing housing. That will be the reality if we go with the McCain approach to a continuing resolution. The FHA will have to stop helping families facing foreclosure. Senator Murray pointed that out. Here is one I will point out, enforcement of security laws. Inadequate resources for the SEC. This would hamper their ability to finally undertake investigation enforcement against these Ponzi schemes. Do we want to go back to the old budget before we knew about these Ponzi schemes? I think it would be irresponsible. It would be more of the party of nope; nope, we cannot fix this, nope, we cannot do that. I want to stand for hope, not nope. We talked about the air traffic controllers. There are also food and medical product safety inspections. We would provide the FDA with an increase of $325 million so they can make sure we do not see people getting sick from eating peanut butter that is contaminated. There is so much more Federal law enforcement effort through the Department of Justice. In the FBI, there would be 650 fewer FBI agents. Is this a time we want to do that, as we are continuing the war against terror? In my last 2 minutes, I ask unanimous consent that I have an additional 2 minutes.