Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read three times and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements relating to this measure be printed in the Record.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that the injunction of secrecy be removed from the following treaty transmitted to the Senate on September 8, 2008, by the President of the United States: Hague Convention on International Recovery of Child Support and Family Maintenance, Treaty Document No. 110-21. I further ask consent that the treaty be considered as having been read the first time; that it be referred, with accompanying papers, to the Committee on Foreign Relations and ordered to be printed; and that the President's message be printed in the Record.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow, Tuesday, September 9; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and that there be a period of morning business for up to 1 hour, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the Republicans controlling the first half and the majority controlling the second half; that following morning business, the Senate resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 3001, the Department of Defense authorization bill; that the Senate recess from 12:30 p.m. until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly caucus luncheons to meet; and that time during any recess, adjournment, or morning business count postcloture.

Ms. BOXER

Ms. BOXER. Mr. President, in a Senate where recently it has been so hard to get things done, Democrats and Republicans have come together in a bipartisan manner to produce a strong conference report that is a victory for children and families. I have a message for American parents everywhere who are concerned about the safety of their children's toys, ``We have heard your concerns, and today, Congress has acted.'' The Senate is about to approve landmark consumer legislation to protect our kids from dangerous children's products and hazardous substances. I want to thank Chairman Inouye, Vice Chairman Stevens, Senator Pryor and their staffs for all of their hard work and dedication to this important bill. As both a parent and a grandparent, I have been incredibly distressed by the seemingly endless stream of reports about defective and dangerous children's toys and products. Consumers Union dubbed 2007 ``The Year of the Recall'' after 45 million toys and other children's products were recalled. Recalls jumped 22 percent for the 9-month period that ended June 30 of this year. Clearly, the Consumer Product Safety Commission has not been able to keep pace with the growing market of consumer products many of which are now manufactured abroad. For too long we have asked this agency, which has a staff of approximately 400 charged with overseeing the safety of 15,000 consumer products, to do too much with grossly inadequate resources and enforcement tools. The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 addresses those resource problems and finally brings the CPSC's enforcement powers in line with those of other Federal agencies charged with protecting the public. The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 includes a strong ban on lead and phthalates, requires testing of all children's products that must meet mandatory toy standards, and for the first time, includes a public, searchable national database on the CPSC website of all consumer complaints filed with the CPSC so consumers can be better informed about dangerous products. The bill also strengthens the Consumer Product Safety Commission's authority to recall products, increases enforcement authority for Attorneys General, includes stronger civil and criminal penalties for violators, bans industry sponsored travel, and provides whistleblower protections for employees of manufacturers, private labelers, retailers, and distributors. I want to thank the conferees for including two provisions I authored in committee. The Labeling Requirement for Advertising Toys and Games requires products sold over the Internet or in catalogues to list any cautionary statements, such as choking warnings, in their advertisements. These labels would normally be visible when the products are purchased in the store but oftentimes are not visible to the consumer when sold over the Internet or in catalogues. My second provision requires manufacturers of durable infant or toddler's products to provide consumers with postage-paid registration forms with each product so consumers can be better informed if the product they bought is eventually recalled. This provision was based on a bill by Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky called the Danny Keysar Child Product Safety Notification Act. Danny Keysar was a 16-month-old child who died when his Playskool Travel-Lite portable crib collapsed--5 years after the CPSC had ordered it off the shelves because it was dangerous. Danny was tragically the fifth victim to die due to the faulty design of this crib and a sixth child died 3 months later. From 1990 to 1997 more than 1.5 million portable cribs with a similar dangerous design were manufactured. A total of 17 children have been killed by these types of cribs. Neither Danny's parents nor a caregiver at the daycare where the accident occurred were aware of the recall. State inspectors who had visited the daycare a week before were not aware of the crib's recall. Our provision will provide parents with a method for receiving these vital recall updates that could save their child's life. I was also pleased to work closely with Senator Klobuchar, Representative Waxman, and other conferees to get a strong ban on lead in toys and other children's products to protect our kids from dangerous lead contamination. I also want to thank Chairman Inouye and Senator Pryor for their leadership and support on this issue. We all know that lead poisons the brain and nervous system, can decrease IQs, and cause behavioral problems, and that it is especially dangerous to children. Let me tell you about Colton Burkhart, a 4-year-old boy from Oregon on a family camping trip who became violently ill from lead poisoning after he swallowed a medallion from a necklace bought in a 25-cent toy vending machine. The medallion turned out to be 39 percent lead, which had elevated his blood lead level to a potentially fatal level of 123 micrograms of lead per deciliter of blood, more than 12 times the CDC's lead poisoning level of concern. Jarnell Brown, another 4-year-old boy was brought to the hospital emergency department in Minneapolis, Minnesota complaining of vomiting. Believing that the child had a stomach virus, he was released. The next day, Jarnell was rushed to the hospital after having suffered a seizure and respiratory arrest. Jarnell later died. An autopsy revealed that he died of acute lead poisoning from a heart-shaped charm from a bracelet that his mother had gotten free with her Reebok sneakers. The charm was found to contain 99.1 percent lead. Reebok recalled 300,000 bracelets worldwide as a result. The many recalls of lead toys and products over the past year have highlighted the need for action. This legislation puts into place a ban on lead in children's products that gets increasingly stringent over 3 years, and that will help ensure that we protect our kids today and in future generations from the scourge of lead poisoning. In addition, Senator Feinstein, Representative Waxman and I successfully fought, shoulder-to-shoulder, for a ban on dangerous phthalates in many children's products. Studies show that phthalates are endocrine disruptors linked to reproductive abnormalities in male babies and many experts believe that the accumulation of exposures to multiple phthalates presents a risk to developing fetuses and young children. Phthalates have been banned from many children's products in the European Union since 1999, and at least nine other countries have followed suit in an effort to better protect children from harmful health effects of these chemicals. My home State of California was the first in the Nation to prohibit phthalates in many toys and child care products, and Washington State and Vermont have taken similar actions. In addition, major retailers such as Wal-Mart, Target, and Toys ``R'' Us have already begun to take phthalate-containing children's products off their shelves. China, which manufactures 85 percent of the world's toys, reportedly has created a separate manufacturing line for products intended for export to nations that ban phthalates. This legislation will permanently ban three of the most dangerous phthalates, DEHP, DBP, and BBP from all children's toys and child care articles. In addition, it imposes an interim ban on three other dangerous phthalates, DINP, DIDP, and DnOP, in children's toys that can be put in the mouth, and in childcare articles. That ban can only be altered after a detailed scientific review. Of course, nothing in this bill undercuts the Commission's authority to go beyond the specific products listed in this section's ban, or the specific phthalates listed in the ban, in any additional action the Commission takes under its regulatory authorities. States such as California that have been leaders in protecting children by restricting toxic phthalate alternatives, are protected. I also want to thank the conferees for working with Congressman Waxman and myself to protect State warning laws related to consumer products, such as California's Proposition 65. We are so pleased to see the final conference report clarifies that State and local toy and children's product requirements in effect before the date of enactment of this legislation are not preempted. This bill is so important to the health and safety of our children and families. I want to again thank my colleagues on both the House and Senate side for all of their efforts on this legislation. We can't risk one more child's injury or tragic death due to faulty toys or children's products. I am glad to hear that the President has agreed to sign this legislation.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I rise to discuss with Senator Pryor, the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Consumer Affairs, Insurance, and Automotive Safety, and lead sponsor of the Senate legislation, the preemptive effect of certain provisions in H.R. 4040. I am pleased that the bill protects State warning laws related to consumer products or substances, such as California's Proposition 65. The conference report clarifies that any such warning laws in effect as of August 31, 2003, are not preempted by this act or the Federal Hazardous Substances Act. This important clarification effectively harmonizes the four statutes that are enforced by the Commission. Other laws enforced by CPSC, including the Consumer Product Safety Act, clearly do not preempt or affect State warning requirements like Proposition 65. The Federal Hazardous Substances Act, however, is arguably ambiguous as to its effect on State warning requirements. I am pleased that we have eliminated this ambiguity with this conference report and harmonized all of the Commission's statutes on this point. I yield to Senator Pryor, and ask: Is it also your understanding that nothing in this legislation or any of the laws enforced by the Consumer Product Safety Commission will preempt or affect Proposition 65 in any way?

Mrs. BOXER. My second inquiry relates to the bill's provisions on phthalates. I am pleased that the language preserves the ability of States to regulate phthalates in product classes that are not regulated under this legislation, as well as States' ability to regulate alternatives to phthalates, such as other chemical plasticizers that might be used as substitutes to the phthalates that will be removed from toys under this law. I yield to Senator Pryor and ask, is it your understanding this law does not preempt or affect States' authority to regulate any alternatives to phthalates that are not specifically regulated by the Commission in a consumer product safety standard?

Mrs. BOXER. I also ask the distinguished floor manager Senator Pryor to confirm my understanding that the third-party testing provisions of the conference report have no preemptive effect on State or local testing related requirements. Is my understanding correct?

Mrs. BOXER. Finally, I wanted to confirm my understanding that the conference report makes it clear in section 106(h)(2) that State or local toy and children's product requirements in effect prior to enactment of this bill are not preempted by this legislation or by the Consumer Product Safety Act. Is my understanding correct?

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a couple questions?

Mrs. BOXER. First of all, Mr. President, I have known my friend from Illinois, the senior Senator from Illinois, for many years. We served in the House together. He is one of the most collegial Members of the Senate. I say to the Senator, I do not think I have ever seen you quite as upset and angry as you are. I wish to ask my friend--because he touched on this--as to the real impact on America's families that he started to discuss. As chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I know, as he does, we have to fund our highway program. I know my colleague from Michigan and my colleague from Minnesota both are going to talk about the need for safe and sound infrastructure and the fact that with it comes good jobs. But here is where we are at this point. Because of the no, no, no votes by that side--what they said no to today was making sure we can pay for the highway projects we have already authorized, we have already told the States to go ahead and start constructing. I say to the Senator, $8 billion was in this bill that they just said no to, again--$8 billion to replenish the highway trust fund. That translates to--and hold on to your hats, folks--400,000 good-paying jobs that will be lost if we do not replenish this fund, not to mention the jobs that are already being lost because they refuse to renew these tax credits for solar, wind, and geothermal.

Mrs. BOXER. In my State, we have a horrible housing crisis. It is terrible. Construction is down. What has been keeping us afloat, I say to my colleagues, is the renewable energy industry. Four hundred solar companies have moved in. They are taking these workers. So how could we have--Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator have 1 more minute.

Mrs. BOXER. So I say to my friend, this Republican Party here, they are the recession party. They stand for recession and moving into depression with their votes, does my friend not agree, with their votes today?

Mrs. BOXER. And the trust fund.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to recognize the 100th anniversary of the city of Albany, located in Alameda County, CA. The city of Albany, formerly known as Ocean View, was incorporated as Ocean View in September 1908. In 1909, voters changed the name of the city to Albany in honor of the birthplace of the city's first mayor, Frank Roberts. This year, we celebrate its centennial anniversary. Well-recognized for its prominent landmark, Albany Hill, the city of Albany has charmed residents and visitors alike for decades. Situated on the eastern shore of the San Francisco Bay in northern Alameda County, Albany's waterfront has undergone significant changes over the last 100 years. From the renovation of the Albany Bulb to the city's involvement in Eastshore State Park, the city of Albany has taken dramatic steps to promote a greener, more sustainable city. These efforts were rewarded in 2008 when Albany was named one of California's greenest cities. Solano Avenue, the principal shopping street in Albany, traverses the city from east to west, while San Pablo Avenue, its other major commercial street, runs north to south. These two streets account for the majority of commerce in the city. Solano Avenue is also host to the annual Solano Stroll, which is held on the second Sunday of every September. This event began in 1974 and has since been designated by the Library of Congress as a National Local Legacy. Another local landmark to be found in Albany is Golden Gate Fields, the only horse racing track in the San Francisco Bay Area. I congratulate the city of Albany on this special occasion of its 100th birthday and salute its wonderful community spirit.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating the 100th anniversary of the city of Kingsburg, a family- oriented community located in California's San Joaquin Valley. The story about the city of Kingsburg, like many other communities throughout the San Joaquin Valley, can be traced to its fertile soils, Mediterranean climate, and industrious population. In the early 1870s, the lure of a better and more stable life prompted two Swedish natives to settle in a Central Pacific Railroad town called Kings River Switch. In 1874, the site for the present-day town site was drawn up and the name was changed to Kingsbury. Two years later, the name was changed to Kingsburgh to reflect the Swedish heritage of many of the town's residents. In 1894, the city's name took on its current spelling, Kingsburg. On May 19, 1908, the city of Kingsburg officially became an incorporated city in Fresno County. The city of Kingsburg has grown from a sleepy railroad town, at its founding, to a vibrant community of nearly 10,000 that rests in the middle of one of the most dynamic regions of California. Kingsburg is where Olympic legend Rafer Johnson and his brother, Pro Football Hall of Famer, Jimmy Johnson, spent their formative years and honed their athletic skills. Today the city of Kingsburg proudly embraces it Swedish heritage and its status as the ``Swedish Village.'' The city's landscape features distinctive Swedish architecture and brightly painted Dala horses, traditional wooden statuettes of horses and a national symbol of Sweden. If its first century is any indication, it is clear that the city of Kingsburg will continue to grow and reach new heights in the years to come. The story of the city's first one hundred years is a testament to the value of community. As the residents of Kingsburg gather to celebrate this auspicious occasion, I congratulate them on their centennial anniversary and wish them continued good fortune and success.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am pleased to recognize the 100th anniversary of the University of California, Davis. U.C. Davis began as a public land-grant university in 1905 when California Governor George Pardee signed into law an act establishing a university farm school for the University of California. One year after the act was signed, the small town of Davisville, today known as Davis, was selected as the site for the University Farm. The campus was established largely due to the vision of Peter J. Shields, then- secretary of the California State Agriculture Society, who was dissatisfied by the fact California students were choosing to attend out-of-state universities due to the lack of programs offered by the University of California. The official opening of the University Farm was in January 1909 with a student body of 18 students from the University of California, Berkeley on a 778-acre campus. The campus opened with 16 regular instructors from U.C. Berkeley's College of Agriculture and 12 nonresident instructors. In 1922, the University Farm was renamed the Northern Branch of the College of Agriculture and expanded to 3,000 acres in 1951 to support its rapidly growing student body. In 1959, the Northern Branch of the College of Agriculture was declared by the Regents of the University of California as the seventh general campus in the University of California system. Since its inception as a U.C. campus, Davis has become one of the most renowned academic universities in the Nation. In 1996, Davis joined the prestigious Association of American Universities, which represents the top 62 research universities in North America. It has also been ranked by U.S. News and World Report as the 42nd best university in the United States and the 11th best public university in the Nation. In addition, Washington Monthly ranked U.C. Davis 8th among all U.S. universities based on its contributions to society. U.C. Davis offers its students 100 academic majors and 86 graduate programs within its 4 colleges and 5 professional schools. It currently ranks 14th in the Nation in total research expenditures, 2nd in agricultural research, 12th in life sciences, and 13th in biological sciences. Davis' impressive faculty include 21 members of the National Academy of Sciences, 13 members of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 7 members of the National Academy of Engineering, 5 members of the Institute of Medicine, 3 members of the Royal Society, 2 members of the American Academy of Arts and Letters, 2 Pulitzer Prize winners, and 2 MacArthur fellows. U.C. Davis alumni account for 1 in every 276 Californians, many of whom have gone on to become leaders in their fields of expertise. Today U.C. Davis has 30,000 students on the largest campus in the U.C. system spanning over 5,300 acres. U.C. Davis is the only U.C. campus with its own airport and one of two campuses with a nuclear laboratory and fire department. The U.C. Davis School of Medicine operates one of the Nation's finest hospitals which is regularly ranked in the top 50 by U.S. News and World Report. As the community, students, staff and alumni gather to celebrate U.C. Davis's centennial anniversary, I would like to congratulate them and thank them for their outstanding commitment to education.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I understand the time is divided between myself and Senator Durbin. How much time do I have?

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I wish to spend the 7 minutes talking about four bills that are in this package from the Environment and Public Words Committee, all of which have broad bipartisan support, and I want to correct the Record on some of the things Senator Coburn stated about one of the bills. The bills are the Captive Primate Safety Act, the Beach Protection Act, the Chesapeake Bay Gateway Act continuing authorization, and the Appalachian Regional Development Act amendment. These bills are all bipartisan and they represent a diverse background of support in the country and in the Senate. The Appalachian Regional Development Act amendment reauthorizes and improves the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965. The ARDA is a Federal-State partnership that works with the people of Appalachia toward self-sustaining economic development and to improve the quality of life in all, or portions, of 13 States--Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia. The commission's primary function is to support economic development in the Appalachian area, critical infrastructure to provide a climate for business, growth, and industry that will create jobs in the regions that need that help. The bill strengthens existing law and provides better assistance to counties in the region that are most at risk of becoming economically distressed. The bipartisan support for this bill is very strong. It includes Senators Voinovich, Alexander, Brown, Burr, Byrd, Cardin, Clinton, Cochran, Dole, Graham, McConnell, Mikulski, Rockefeller, Schumer, Sessions, Shelby, Specter, and Warner. We certainly hope this package passes because this area of the Nation requires this commission to continue its work. Next, the Beach Protection Act. We spent a lot of time talking about offshore oil drilling. Let the Record show that everyone in the Senate supports offshore oil drilling. The difference between Democrats and Republicans is that they want to open pristine areas off the coast, where we protect a $70 billion coastal economy, while the oil companies hold leases to 68 million acres and they are not drilling. So we all say drill now to these oil companies. But as far as opening our pristine coast and jeopardizing the coastal economy, that doesn't make much sense. What will happen is you will give the oil companies more assets on their balance sheet, and they are still not drilling the acres they have, the 68 million acres, plus they have access to another 28 million acres in the Alaska Naval Reserve. I believe they have developed 3 million of those acres. It has about three times as much oil as ANWR. This is so much bluster and there is nothing to it--except the oil companies' power to be shown on the floor of the Senate by my friends, the Republicans. Regardless of those differences, we want to protect our beaches. We don't want to have our kids swimming in polluted water. They want to enjoy the clean, safe, healthy, pristine beaches. The Beach Act will do that. Essentially, there are improvements that are greatly needed so that the waters are tested and people know it is safe to swim. The bipartisan support for this bill includes Senators Lautenberg, Voinovich, Warner, Brown, Cardin, Clinton, Durbin, Kerry, Klobuchar, Menendez, Schumer, and Stabenow. The Chesapeake Bay Gateway Act will help to connect the public with the Chesapeake Bay and its rivers to 150 exceptional parks, wildlife refuges, and historic trails. It is one of America's and the world's most important estuaries. The American people put a great amount of resources into protecting and restoring this great water body, and now this bill will help the public understand, visit, and enjoy this spectacular bay. I applaud the bipartisan work that went into this bill. The work was done by Senators Specter, Biden, Carper, and Casey, and the lead on this was taken by the Senators from Maryland and the Senators from Virginia. The last one I will talk about is Captive Primate Safety Act, and why this bill will help address a serious issue. More than 132 people, including 29 children, have been injured by nonhuman primates, and the fact is they should not be pets. One of the statements I read that Senator Coburn made is that this is going to stop the ability of scientists to use these nonhuman primates in science. That is false. That is exempted from this. He also made reference to the fact that we ought to ban them from coming into the country. The fact is that, since 1975, they have been banned from coming into the country. But they are in the country and the fact is there is interstate trade here. It is a real problem. The CDC has said they have serious concerns about the transmission of communicable diseases here, and they stated: These animal species have been linked to transmission of certain diseases to humans, and individuals involved in transporting animals are especially at risk for infection. So even though we have had these concerns and we passed legislation banning their importation, the CDC is still greatly concerned that there is a nonhuman primate pet trade in this country. So, clearly, the statements that have been made on this have been incorrect. Trade or transportation of these animals for zoos is exempt. Scientific research facilities are exempt and certain other regulated entities. Groups like Helping Hands, which provides highly trained and carefully controlled nonhuman primates as helping animals to severely disabled people

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 30 seconds.

Mrs. BOXER. Last week, I received a letter from the Humane Society highlighting the need for this legislation, and another letter of support from over 25 groups, including Defenders of Wildlife. I will close with this. When Senator Vitter comes together with me, that is unusual. But we came together on this bill. Senator Lieberman is on board, as are Senators Lautenberg, Menendez, and Ensign. So you are looking at a bill that has been carefully thought out. I urge strong support for this package. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am pleased to ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Herb Fischer as he retires from a long and distinguished career in education. His service and commitment to California's schoolchildren, and to his community, have provided an example for us all. Dr. Fischer received his undergraduate degree in business administration from California Polytechnic San Luis Obispo. He later earned his teaching credential, master's degree, and doctorate from the University of California, Riverside. Dr. Fischer served his 38-year career in education in San Bernardino County, beginning as a classroom teacher. He later served as a principal and district administrator in the San Bernardino City Unified School District, where he remained for 22 years. One of his chief accomplishments was his administrative support for San Bernardino City Unified's Desegregation and Integration Magnet School Program. This has been a model in providing quality programs for all students and offers parents and students more educational choices. Dr. Fischer also served as superintendent of the Colton Joint Unified School District for 7 years. There he directed a staff of over 2,500 employees. In 1998 Dr. Fischer was elected to serve as County Superintendent, where he oversees the programs and operations of the County Superintendent of Schools Office, which has an annual operating budget of $250 million. Under Dr. Fischer's leadership, the County Superintendent of Schools Office has prioritized services to support school districts' efforts to improve student performance and accountability. This has included closing achievement and access gaps for underperforming schools and underrepresented students, improving postsecondary education and career readiness, and ensuring safe school campuses. Among other accomplishments during Dr. Fischer's tenure, the County Superintendent of Schools Office lead a county-wide emphasis to improve student performance collectively with district superintendents, resulting in increased scores on the State Academic Performance Index for 7 consecutive years. He also was responsible for the construction of the county's first permanent school site, the Dorothy Gibson County High School in Ontario, and six additional schools to improve housing for the 6,000-plus special and alternate education students served by the county. Dr. Fischer also established three regional councils to provide seamless education, and close access and achievement gaps for students, and launched the Alliance for Education initiative that has over 1,500 business, labor, community, and faith-based partners working with public schools to improve the college, career, and labor readiness of students. For his outstanding leadership and contributions to education and the community, Dr. Fischer has been recognized by many organizations. He was awarded the University of California, Riverside Alumni Association's prestigious Alumni Public Service Award for his service to the public sector. He has been recognized by the Rialto/Fontana Chapter of the NAACP, the Victor Valley African American, and Inland Empire Hispanic Chambers of Commerce for building collaborative relationships to benefit the education of all students throughout San Bernardino County. Most recently, the Mount Baldy Chapter of the Building Industry Association recognized Dr. Fischer for his leadership in developing partnerships with business leaders. Throughout his long career in education and public service, Dr. Herbert R. Fischer has consistently provided for stronger communities and higher educational attainment, and he has provided a model of exemplary service to us all. I am pleased to ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating him on his retirement.

Mrs. BOXER

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

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I know you care a lot about the way we move toward addressing our energy crisis, and I think the American people are very wise about this. I think they want to see action, but they do not want to see phony solutions to a real problem. I remember when the idea came up for a gas tax holiday and it was put forward by Senator McCain and others, it took a few days for people to understand that our gas tax funds our highway program and we were not about to put our highway program at risk because that program is essential to building the infrastructure of our Nation. That program is essential for hiring millions of workers. The American people are wise. They want to see solutions that are real and that work. That is why I believe so strongly that as we shine the light of truth on this idea to undo a moratorium we have had on magnificent areas of our coastline, as people shine the light of truth on that, they will understand that this is another phony solution. It doesn't do a thing to lower gas prices. Just as the gas tax holiday put the highway trust fund at risk, this idea puts our national coastal economy at risk, which, as my friend knows, is a $70 billion economy with millions of jobs, many of them in his State of New Jersey and my State of California. It makes no sense to tell the American people that by undoing this very important protection for our coastline, that is going to result in lower prices at the pump. It simply is not going to happen. There are many things we can do. I am going to outline some of those things for the consideration of colleagues, but I think the important thing for us to note as we reach this election year is that we are going to hear a lot of silly stuff. We are going to see a lot of proposals to try to take the focus off why we are where we are. Two oil men in the White House for 8 years equals $4 per gallon for gasoline. That is 8 years divided by two oil men in the White House equals $4 per gallon of gasoline. As my colleagues were coming up with this idea on how to show us where we are--and Senator Whitehouse was one of those--I said to him: We better be careful, because in California we are getting to $5 a gallon gasoline and this math will not work. But I am happy we did this, because one of the hallmarks of being a mature adult is taking responsibility. And this administration does not want to take responsibility for anything; not for the housing crisis, not for the war in Iraq, not for the deficit, the debt, not for the stock market, not for anything, and certainly not for a 300-percent increase in gas prices that has occurred while we have had two oil men in the White House. The oil companies have gotten everything they have wanted: record- breaking profits, CEOs taking tens of millions of dollars home in their pockets. And guess what the President's solution is: Give the oil companies more of what they want. Give them access to beautiful land, land in the OCS, the Outer Continental Shelf, that was set aside first by President George Bush, G.W.'s Dad. He did not listen to him on Iraq and he is not listening to him on this either, and then carried forward by President Clinton. Now, here is the point: Do we need to drill? Do we need to have domestic drilling? No problem. I agree with that. I agree with that. So go to the places where it makes sense. Do not go to the places where you are going to threaten a thriving coastal economy. That leads me to the next chart which is: Use it or lose it. What do I mean? The oil companies have available to them 68 million acres they have leases on for drilling. Have they drilled there? No, not really. They have not. So I would say, rhetorically, why would the oil companies, in a time of these prices, not go and drill in these acres where they have all of this oil? Answer--it is easy to answer your own question. Answer: They love the fact that there is a shortage of supply. I have seen in my own State where they tried to shut down a refinery and made up a whole story that it was losing money, that there were no buyers. That was baloney. And now why do you think they want more access to these leases? It is because they can put it on their balance sheet and their stocks can go up and their CEOs can make more money. Even the Bush administration stated very clearly there would be no impact on gas prices if you gave them access to more OCS. So let's go through this again. There are 68 million acres available for the oil companies right now this minute. And they want more, more, more, so they can put it on their balance sheets, get their stocks to go up higher, get their CEOs to earn more money. They are not going to drill. It would be foolhardy to believe this President when it comes to this issue. He said, and I am quoting him almost verbatim--if I do a disservice I am sure I will hear about it because I listened to him say it. He said: There is only one thing standing in the way of lower gas prices, and that is the Congress. I thought: Well, that is interesting. What does he want us to do? Then he said he wants us to reverse our policy of preserving the pristine areas of our coastline. By the way, 80 percent of our coastline, 80 percent of the resource, is already available for drilling, so this represents 20 percent, so it is not an answer, anyway. His own people tell him it is not, but he is so desperate to detract the flak away from himself and his oil partner, Dick Cheney, that he comes up with this idea. I am here on the floor tonight because I am trying to tell the American people the God's honest truth. Here is what you are going to hear. You are going to hear: There were no problems with oil spills after Katrina. My friend from New Jersey, Senator Menendez, is in the chair. I heard him give a little speech about this. He has documented tens of thousands of gallons of spills after Katrina. We have spills in California all the time. We have a lot of offshore oil drilling in our State. But we know we do not want it expanded, because we count on the quarter million jobs we have in our State in the tourist industry and the fishing industry and the recreation industry. So I say to my friend: What can we do then to push for lower gas prices? There is a whole host of things we can do. I want to say for the 68 million acres available for drilling now: Use it or lose it, oil companies. There is another 22 million acres in the naval reserve that is off of Alaska. They have only bid for a few million acres there, so they can do that. But do not come into our coasts. They are a gift from God. It is a moral responsibility to protect it, and it is an economic responsibility to protect it, because once you start the drilling, it changes the whole nature of that coast. I know that because I have got part of the coastline that allows drilling and part that does not, and the difference is immeasurable in terms of the activities that go on, in terms of the wildlife, in terms of the scenic value, the beauty, and the pristine feeling you have. So what can we do? First, tell the oil companies: Drill where you have got leases. Oh, and the other thing you hear, in addition that there were no problems after Katrina, you will hear other stories about how we do not know if there is any oil in those acres. Excuse me, we do, because in the 2005 Energy bill we ordered an inventory to be taken. That inventory was started and we are getting the information. We know there is six times the amount of oil here than in ANWR, the Alaska preserve. So use it or lose it. That is one. I did a whole study in my office about what it would mean to our imports of foreign oil if we could suddenly have every car on the road get in the high 30s, toward 40 miles per gallon fuel economy. I drive a hybrid. It is very good. One of my hybrid cars, the newest one, gets over 50. So I wanted to know if we all suddenly shifted--we know it is not going to happen, but it was an exercise. If we were able to get 39, 40 miles per gallon, that would save every single bit of import of oil from the Persian Gulf. Can you imagine? So why are we sitting around being so dour about this? The technology is already there. We know we can do even better. If we can get that fuel efficiency up to 39, up to 40, we will no longer have to import nearly as much foreign oil. That is a very exciting point. So what can we do to lower gas prices and have the impact not be felt on our pocketbook? One way is to lessen the demand. Another way, because that does not always work, as my friend knows, if you get cars that do better so that, yes, you may be paying more at the end of the day but you need less to keep your car running, I would like to see some strong incentives for buying a hybrid car. Those incentives are gone now. We limited them to a certain number of cars. I would like to see that come down here, and we do not need to give people who earn $200,000 or $300,000 a year those benefits, but I would like to give people who earn $30,000, $40,000 even up to $100,000, $150,000, a break when they buy a hybrid vehicle, an electric vehicle, because families do save up and do make these decisions. And we should incentivize them for purchasing such an automobile. What else can we do? We have a Strategic Petroleum Reserve. One of the reasons it is set aside is so we can avoid the shock for the economy of high gas prices. Now is the time. I agree with Speaker Pelosi, who has put this out as an idea, to release some of the oil from the SPR. It is 97 percent full. Even if you kept it at 90 percent full, it is the highest it has been in history. That would have a salutary impact by allowing that supply to get right into the market. And, by the way, if we did it in a swap, and it is complicated here, there are ways we could actually make money on such a plan. So that is another way. Incentives for conservation, use it or lose it, while we protect our coasts. I am saying to you there are many ways to move. Speculation. Some experts have said speculation is anywhere from 25 percent of the problem to 50 percent. I do not know where it comes out. But I can tell you this: We ought to go after the speculators. I talked to my friend Maria Cantwell from Washington. She and I and Senators Feinstein and Murray were so burned on the Enron scandal. Now we have got traders doing the same thing. And we know there are many people playing in the futures market who are unregulated. They go abroad. So I am hopeful, and Senator Reid said he is working on this, he will be able to bring down to this floor a bipartisan measure that goes after the speculators. We can do these things. There are many other things we can do. Let me tell you, the bottom line in the long run is global warming legislation, which I know my friend was such a strong supporter of. The fact is, we have 54 Senators who said: Yes, let's go forward on this. But we did not have 60, so we were cut short. The fact is, our next President is going to take this on, and when he does and we work with him, we will unleash the genius of America. Once there is a price on carbon that will probably be set in the private market through a cap-and-trade system, the investments that will be made in cellulosic fuels, in biofuels, all of these things that we need, they are going to happen. I have been told by Silicon Valley that they are going to spend more, more in finding alternative energy that is clean, that does not have a carbon footprint, than they did in the biotech revolution and in the high-tech revolution. That is pretty remarkable. What we need to do in the long term is to stand up together, fight global warming, save the planet, have a transition fund to help our consumers get through the early years. We know from our modeling that by the time we get to the outyears, people will be saving money because we will have the alternatives. So when it comes to energy, efficiency is the name of the game too. You know, if you have a leaky house, meaning that if you do not have double-paned windows, you double-pane them, the difference in your bill is overwhelming. If you are putting in a new air conditioner, and you have to do it, if you go to the high efficiency end, your bills will go down by two-thirds. That is a fact. We cannot drill our way out of this. Anyone who tells you we can is not telling the truth. Senator Biden was saying to me, suppose you opened up every single drop of oil to drilling. It is a tiny percent of the energy we need. Why on Earth would we tell people, therefore, if you just open the coastline, your gas price will go down? That is what the President is saying. It is not true. His own energy people tell him it is not true. It will not have an impact on gas prices. Why don't we do something that will? I think I talked about some of those ideas. I will close where I started, which is to the oil companies and to this President: Let the oil companies start drilling in the acreage they have access to before we start giving away the crown jewels of our country. We are just not going to do it. I know the Senator from New Jersey very well. He and I are close friends. We worked hard on coastal protection. We will use every tool at our disposal to make sure that an energy policy we embrace is real, is not phony, does not give away more gifts to the oil companies and these CEOs who are making hundreds of millions of dollars in 1 year. We are not going to allow it. It is not going to happen. It shouldn't happen. What should happen is a balanced approach where we have drilling where it makes sense, where it doesn't endanger our precious coastline. By the way, to think of the millions of dollars we have put into sanctuaries to protect wildlife and to hear our President say what he said was, to me, extraordinary. I haven't had a note in front of me through this speech because, honestly, I wasn't going to speak about this formally. But I couldn't resist the opportunity to get into the Record my dismay at having a President who is an oilman, who has presided over the biggest runup in gas prices we have ever seen. He has not ordered one investigation. He hasn't used any of the tools at the FTC, at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, not one thing to say to the oil companies: Shape up. We have proven in California that they are trying to control the supply. All he can do to deflect attention away from 8 years divided by two oilmen in the White House equals $4 per gallon of gasoline, all he can do now is to say: Congress, it is all your fault. It won't work. The American people are too smart. Where is the President on the renewable energy tax credits we have tried and our Republican friends stopped us every single time? There is so much genius out there. We have the technologies, the solar, the wind, the geothermal. In California, we have 400 new solar companies because we are taking the lead on global warming. Thank God, we do because as the housing market is doing very badly in California and people are laid off of construction, they are going over to work putting solar panels on, building windmills. Thank goodness. That is what we could be doing all over this great Nation if we had a leader in the White House and enough of us here to overcome the status quo, the sucking up to the oil companies. I hate to be crude about it, but I have to say that is what it is like. We don't have an energy policy that works for anybody but the oil companies. It is quite obvious. I hope the American people watch this debate. I hope they embrace the values we have had for so long, since George Bush's dad was in the White House, when we said there is a value to our unspoiled coast and there is not enough oil there to make a difference overall, so why should we jeopardize the many jobs that come from this unspoiled coast by drilling there when there are so many other places to drill and so many other ways we can work on this problem? My colleague has been a leader on this issue. In many ways, he has been inspirational to many of us. I hope he has a chance to take the floor of the Senate and make some remarks. Leadership is very necessary. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I move to reconsider the vote.