Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Chair. Drilling in Pristine Areas Mr. President, I am going to discuss, in about a 20-minute timeframe, a couple issues that are swirling around this country and the Senate, and I wish to go on record on both of them. One has to do with President Bush and Senator McCain's proposal to open pristine areas off America's coastline to offshore oil drilling as an answer, they say, to high gas prices. I am going to, hopefully, debunk that argument, and I hope I can do it convincingly. The second area is going to be my feeling on the FISA bill, which is coming to us tomorrow--the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act bill. I think I can start off where Senator Dorgan ended. He has been brilliant on the point that speculation in oil futures is what is responsible for a good deal of this horrific runup in the price of gas at the pump. We need to do something about these speculators. We have been blocked from doing that by the Republican leadership. I wish to quote Michael Greenberg, a former director of trading and markets for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, who testified before the Senate Commerce Committee. He said: Going after the speculators will bring down the price of crude oil to get at least a 25 percent drop in the cost of oil and a corresponding drop in the cost of gasoline. Testifying Monday before a House Energy and Commerce Committee subcommittee, Michael Masters, of Masters Capital, said: The price of crude oil would drop to a marginal cost of $65 to $75 a barrel, about half of the current $135. Imagine, the experts are telling us speculation is responsible for about 25 to 50 percent of the cost runup of gasoline. We are trying desperately to close that Enron loophole, to ensure that the speculators are once again regulated. There is a Bill Nelson bill, S. 3134, which would say all energy future contracts will fall within the regulatory format they were at before. So we can do this. Where are President Bush and Senator McCain on going after the speculators? I don't hear them suggesting that. I don't see my Republican friends embracing this. They have already stopped us a couple times from doing it. If we want to do something about the price of gas, let's go after the speculators, and it will result in a very quick reduction in these outrageous price increases. We have the Strategic Petroleum Reserve which is 97 percent full. George Bush's father took some oil out of there after the first gulf war. President Clinton also took some out of there, and it had the impact of lowering the price. In other words, they are adding a supply from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Again, it is 97 percent full. This is the moment when we could tap it. It will make a difference, and it will get to the people, within a few short days. Thirteen days from a Presidential decision, we could have more oil on the market. Our colleagues agreed with us to stop filling SPR, but we don't have their support for taking some out--and, of course, you would return it at another time. Here is a big one, and I will show you this chart. Remember, the President and Senator McCain said open all the coastal areas to drilling--these pristine areas. So you have to ask yourself: Well, have we run out of places to drill offshore? The answer is no. What about onshore? No. Oil companies hold leases to nearly 68 million acres of Federal lands that are not producing oil. This land could produce 4.8 million barrels of oil each day--six times the peak production from drilling in the Arctic--and it would double total U.S. oil production. Let me say that again--68 million acres of oil leases are being held today by the oil companies. I say they should use it or lose it. Here we have people saying: Oh, give them more. That is akin to saying to a kid, whom you are trying to get to do something, I will buy you an ice cream cone if you do XYZ; but they are holding two ice cream cones in their hands now. Let me show you what 68 million acres looks like. First, I will show you the onshore, which is about half of that. Look at the red areas on the map. This is onshore, 34.5 million acres that are unused by the oil companies. They will not drill there, but now they want more leases in the most beautiful parts of America. This is ridiculous. It is a phony idea. It is not going to bring down gas prices 1 cent, according to the Bush Energy Department. It will have no impact--maybe by 2030. I am looking at some of the Senate pages, and they will be moms and dads by then. Let's look at the offshore leases. Look at this. These are the offshore leases that the oil companies hold. They are not using them. Yet, still, President Bush and Senator McCain--and this is a flip-flop by Senator McCain; he has always supported protecting the beautiful areas, but they are now saying it is necessary now to sell off the family jewels. I have to tell you, coming from a State--and the Senator in the chair does as well--where an unspoiled coastline is our ticket to a tourist industry, a fishing industry, a recreation industry, an industry in America that provides, today, $70 billion in a coastal economy--$70 billion and millions of jobs. In my State, it is about $11 billion or $12 billion and a quarter of a million jobs. So you have to ask this question to the President and Senator McCain: We all want to help our middle class and our working poor pay for the price of gas. We want to bring down the price of gas, or we want to give them alternatives to having to fill their cars; we all want to do that. Let's give real answers. Let's not give an answer that could threaten a huge coastal economy. Our families are having a very hard time paying for gas. Imagine what happens when they lose their jobs because the coastal economy is now going to go. What good is that? Millions of jobs are at stake. So rather than go after the speculators, rather than look at the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, rather than tell the oil companies, look, you can double production and you are not doing it, rather than ask the Federal Trade Commission to investigate supply manipulation--and I can give you story after story of supply manipulation. In my own State, we had a large company--Shell Oil--try to close down a refinery. They said it wasn't making money and there were no buyers. Untrue. We called our State attorney general. He got involved. We found out they were making money and that there were buyers. They just want to manipulate the supply. Because of our involvement, and especially the attorney general, that refinery was sold. That was 2 percent of our State's supply at the pump. So these oil companies do not come to this with clean hands. We know it. This administration gives them a pass, saying let the speculation fly, and let the oil companies sit on these leases; forget about using the CFTC, forget about going to the World Trade Organization and lodging a complaint against OPEC because they are anticompetitive. They don't do that. They are not doing anything to extend the tax credit for the most fuel-efficient vehicles. That expired because they put a cap on it, on how many cars would have to be sold before you no longer get this tax credit. They don't do any of the things that would help us now. I don't see them saying: Let's make sure our transportation districts locally have enough funds to add more buses and to add more ferry boats. We could be doing these things now. What is their answer? Drill, drill, drill, drill, drill. Where? The most pristine areas of our coasts--these areas that are a gift from God. Millions of dollars have gone into setting aside marine sanctuaries. We will put it all at risk because oil companies see it as an opportunity to get more leases, increase their portfolio, and increase the assets on their books. I have to say I hope the American people will look at this proposal the same way they looked at the gas tax holiday. When that first came up, having a gas tax holiday, John McCain recommended it, saying this is going to mean good news at the pump. The truth is it threatens the highway trust fund because those are the funds that go into the highway trust funds so we can take care of our highways. There was nothing in the proposal that would have led to a lowering of the price of gasoline. Other costs could have been passed right on to the consumer. So it is amazing to me that we now have another proposal that is basically the same kind of proposal: Drill, drill, drill, and put at risk a $70 billion coastal economy. First, the gas tax holiday put at risk the highway trust funds. This proposal puts at risk a $70 billion coastal economy and millions of jobs that go with it, and it doesn't even account for the fact that there are so many acres--68 million acres--leased to oil companies that they have not produced. It seems to me the American people will understand that this so- called solution to high gas prices, which the President's own Energy Department says will not save a penny, is another phony solution. It is not real. When we look at the long term, what we know is we have to pass global warming legislation. When we do that, when the private sector puts a price on carbon, we are going to see technologies erupt from America that are going to make us competitive. We will export those technologies. We know when we take care of our environment, in the long run, our economy gets stronger. We need to invest in transportation. We need to go after OPEC. We have to go after the speculators. We know we will see, with global warming legislation, investments in cellulosic ethanol, which is going to compete with fossil fuel, and we know it is going to work. So there are short-term answers to these gas prices, and I laid them out, and there are long-term answers, and I laid those out. I am not the only person in the Senate who has these ideas. But to put out a phony solution to a real problem does not help us and it jeopardizes a lot of jobs and a coastal economy. I look forward to working with my colleagues on going after the speculators and doing all I need to do. I ask unanimous consent that I be given an additional 10 minutes on my time.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, this debate over gas prices and the long- term and short-term solutions is going to go on for a while. I look forward to addressing them, both in my committees of jurisdiction and on the floor. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Mr. President, we are about to get a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act bill that is going to come to the Senate probably tomorrow. I know that a lot of my colleagues worked very hard and very long to try to get a compromise on this bill. I have to say that there is a portion of this bill that I believe is egregious and will prevent me from voting for this bill. It is because I believe one of the most basic tenets of our freedom is justice. Looking at justice, we have to see what lies at the heart of justice. And what lies at the heart of justice is the search for the truth. If you block the truth from coming out, if you don't allow a search for the truth, you don't find justice. I worry very much about that. Throughout our history, whenever the U.S. Government has violated the trust of the American people, we have worked to regain that trust by seeking the truth and allowing for a full examination of the abuses of Government power. We can see that in the history of America. Sometimes these egregious acts take many years to uncover. I am thinking of the Tuskegee experiments. Of course, we have to go back to the days of slavery. Go back to the Jim Crow laws. Go back to the era of the Vietnam war and the tenure of J. Edgar Hoover, who headed the FBI. We knew in that particular case that the CIA and the FBI, under J. Edgar Hoover--he headed the FBI--he engaged in spying on the political activities of American citizens. He was spying on famous, important people, such as Martin Luther King. He was spying on people at the highest levels of Government. He was also spying on the American people. Pictures were taken at rallies where people were trying to argue for an end to the Vietnam war. In 1975, the Church Committee, which would later become the Senate Committee on Intelligence, looked into allegations of covert and illegal spying by the Federal Government on Americans. What did the committee find? The committee found that, indeed, there had been spying on Americans by the FBI and the CIA. Here is what is interesting. What did the Congress do when they found out, in horror, that the Government was spying on the people? They passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in 1978. It set up a new court with authority to approve electronic surveillance but only on a case-by-case basis. Since that time, we have updated FISA to reflect the changes in the threat we face in America and to reflect the new technologies. Suddenly, in late 2005, we learned that the U.S. Government--our Government, the Bush administration--had violated the trust of the American people again when the New York Times published a story exposing a warrantless surveillance program authorized by President Bush shortly after 9/11. Since that time, Congress and the American people have been grappling with the disclosure and working, with no help from this administration, to find out what happened. We cannot find out exactly what happened, who was spied upon. Was I spied upon? Were you spied upon? How many people were spied upon? What information was gained? In putting together the FISA bill, I do believe House and Senate members tried hard to find a balance and figure out a way to get to the truth, but I feel they have fallen short because what we will have before us when this bill comes before us is not only a bill that will deny the court the ability to make a judicial determination as to the legality of the spying program, but it will effectively guarantee immunity for the telecommunications companies that cooperated with the administration and violated the privacy of their customers. You have to know that we had laws in place that specifically said to telephone companies: You cannot invade the privacy of your customers. What apparently happened was the Government went to them and said: We are asking you to disregard the law. I understand the predicament of the companies, although there was one company that refused to cooperate. One company refused to cooperate. They said: No, we are not going to do it. But all the others cooperated. And now we have a situation where we know the telephone companies responded to the Government and said: OK, we will disregard that law on your say-so. I would support granting the telecom companies indemnification--in other words, having the Government step in and be the party that has to pay the price--but this immunity provision that is in the bill blocks us from finding the truth. Remember what I said when I started: The essence of justice is to get to the truth, and we are not going to be able to get to the truth. We are not going to know exactly how this program ran. We don't know enough. The Bush administration, in my view, trampled on the Constitution, and we are not doing anything in this bill to provide accountability. Frankly, if we just left out this provision and passed the rest of the bill, we would let the courts do their job. Fine. But, no, no, we have to add this provision and essentially set up kind of a new law now to deal with this spying operation. I don't think we can hold up the Constitution when it suits us and set it aside when it hinders us. That is not what the Constitution is. The supporters of this compromise will say: Wait a minute, Senator Boxer, we have a provision in there that says the telecom companies have to prove they were asked by the Government to do this activity. We know they were asked by them. That is why I don't want to punish the telecom companies. Mr. President, I tell you what I do want to do: find out the truth. That, the truth, I want to find out. I have to believe that if we don't change Title II of this bill, we are perpetuating a coverup. I use that word advisedly because I don't think we will ever get to the truth of what happened here. I support giving our country every tool necessary to track down the terrorists. I voted to go to war against bin Laden, and I am disgusted that he is still out there taunting us, all these days, all these years, despite George Bush. Dead or alive, we will get him. Where is he? I want to go after al-Qaida. I want to go after bin Laden. I think we do have to provide all the tools that are necessary, but we also must uphold the Constitution and the rights of our citizens. This granting of immunity will block the courts from moving forward and learning whose privacy was violated. I want to be able to look in the eyes of my constituents in California, 38 million people, and say: I know you were in that group of people, and I feel terrible, and we are going to make it right for you; or, I know you were not involved in being caught up in this net. These are extraordinary and difficult times. Our sons and daughters were sent to Iraq to fight for our freedoms. We have to listen to what former Justice Marshall says: History teaches us that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure. Our Constitution is not an extravagance. It is the centerpiece, the very essence of a democracy. It is what our sons and daughters are fighting for abroad. How could we say on the one hand to our soldiers: Go fight for our freedoms, go fight for the freedoms in our Constitution, while at home we are covering up the erosion of those freedoms? The bill was improved upon, and I am glad Title I improved the way we go about protecting the rights of our citizens and balances it with the need to get this information. I am very pleased with that. But it seems to me, if you believe in the truth, then I don't see how you grant this type of immunity. Again, I would substitute the Government, I would indemnify these companies. I am not interested in hurting them. But I want to get to the truth. We have a really good way to do that, which is to strip this part from the bill. We will have our rights protected then. We will have the tools we need to fight terrorism. We must do better than this. So unless there is some miracle that happens overnight and we see some changes, I will be forced to oppose this bill. I am hoping we will have an opportunity to vote on a substitute that will keep the rest of the bill intact but eliminate this egregious provision which really is very troubling. Anyone who lived through the days of J. Edgar Hoover and the kind of spying that went on, who understands FISA was passed to protect Americans has to be alarmed. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will not object, I ask unanimous consent that following Senator Vitter--he is going to speak next for approximately 5 minutes--I then be recognized to speak for up to 20 minutes.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I want to get back to the issue before us, the housing crisis. I thank Senators Dodd and Shelby for working so hard to reach compromise. Here is where we are. I believe if you look at this recession many of our States are in--and there is an argument as to whether we are in this recession nationally--we know where it is coming from. The housing crisis is certainly a root cause. The speculation in the futures market, in oil, is definitely a root cause. We need to address both of those issues. That is why on this side of the aisle we had a very good package of bills to go after the speculators, to go after the manipulators of gas prices. We will keep coming back until our colleagues recognize they can talk about drilling off the coast in pristine areas all they want--the truth is, the American people will see through that. Even if we were to do it--and I think it would be a disaster for our economy because those areas are dependent on a pristine coast--you are not going to see any impact on gas prices until 2030. So what we need to do on the gas-price front is to confront the people who are speculating. We have heard numbers of up to about a third of the price of a barrel of oil being associated with the speculation. I also signed on to a letter. I thank Senator Frank Lautenberg for his leadership. Eleven of us signed it, saying to the President that he should file a complaint with the World Trade Organization against OPEC for withholding supply. So there is a lot we can do. The President today could call for a quick investigation through the FTC, the Federal Trade Commission, on collusion and so on. But that is not happening. So at least we are, today, doing something very important, which is coming together, hopefully, to pass a bill that will deal with this housing crisis. Look, I know I have talked to Senators Dodd and Shelby. In my State, we have a big problem. I am going to show you a little later with a chart where we are with foreclosures. So, of course, I would have liked to have seen even a stronger bill. But I know how hard it was for Senators Dodd and Shelby. Each had his own ideas of what had to be done. They came together, and I support what they have done. I stood before the Senate about 2 months ago when we took up an earlier version of the bill, and I spoke about how California had more than triple the number of foreclosure filings in 2007 than in 2006. I am very sad to report that the situation is even worse today. I want to share with you what we see. Foreclosure filings in California have skyrocketed over the last 41 months, rising from under 6,000 in January 2005 to 72,000 foreclosure filings in May--the highest monthly number yet and nearly double the number of a year ago. Last month alone, 1 in every 183 California households received a foreclosure filing--a rate that was 2.6 times the national average. Imagine, 1 in every 183 California households received a foreclosure filing--2.6 times the national average. As you can see--and this will go to the next chart; and I say to Senator Dodd, I hope you have a minute to check this out--7 of the top 10 and 11 of the top 20 metropolitan areas with the highest foreclosure activity in the country are in California. This is where we are in California. Mr. President, 11 of the top 20 metropolitan areas with the most foreclosure filings in May are in my State. You see Stockton is No. 1, Merced is No. 3, and Modesto is No. 4--and it goes on. This bill takes some important steps to address the crisis. It provides funds to purchase and maintain foreclosed homes, to prevent the cycle of blight from further lowering home values. It provides $4 billion for neighborhood stabilization through community development block grants for localities. As a former county supervisor--that goes back a ways, but I well remember that the health of the neighborhoods depended on the homeowners. When the homeowners disappear because they cannot sell their home or they foreclosed on a home, the whole neighborhood begins to wither. This is a problem. So I believe this $4 billion that will go to revitalize our neighborhoods and stabilize them is very important. It provides $150 million in additional funding for housing counselors. I held many open meetings throughout my State on this crisis, and the crying need was for housing counselors because somebody has to find out with whom they have their mortgage. Maybe it has changed four times. Maybe the mortgage was securitized. They do not have anyone to contact. We need these counselors to be on their side. That funding in this bill will help as many as 250,000 more families work with their mortgage servicer or lender to find a way to keep their home. I know when you get people around the table who really know what is happening, we can solve a lot of these problems. Third, the bill creates the HOPE for Homeowners Act, which authorizes $300 billion in FHA-backed loans to help families stay in their homes-- at no cost to American taxpayers because of the way this will work. These are all vital steps. My big concern goes to the issue of the Nation's high-cost areas, of which California is one. We see there is a permanent increase in the loan limits for Fannie, Freddie, and FHA, but they are not as high as what was in the stimulus package. Although it is $625,000--it is a step in the right direction--we really should go back to the $729,000 we had under the economic stimulus package. The loan limit for participation in the HOPE for Homeowners Program is set at $550,000. Given the concentration of foreclosures in high- cost areas, a higher loan limit for this program is essential. I know this was an issue for Senator Shelby, but I want to point out that in his State, I think the average price of a home is about $130,000--the average median home price--$130,000. That is way under other areas, particularly areas such as Florida, California, and Nevada. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the States that would benefit from the higher loan limit.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, there are 28 States here. Believe me when I say, if we stick with the lower limits, a lot of people are not going to get the benefit. We are talking really about 97 million Americans who would be adversely impacted by the fact that we did not have a higher limit here. In California, 21 million people--more than half the State's population--live in 1 of 14 counties that have a median price so high, they do qualify for the higher $729,000 loan limits. So I say to my friend, Senator Shelby, please remember that borrowers in his State will have access to affordable mortgages, for loans well over 300 percent above the median home price. So Senator Shelby's State is taken care of. But the States on this list, including California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, and Massachusetts--I could read this list--they are going to be in trouble with these lower limits. Again, my State has 11 of the top 20 metropolitan areas in the country with the most foreclosure filings. Going back to this chart, I want to show Senator Dodd what has happened here. We just keep going up in foreclosures. Now 1 in every 183 households has received a foreclosure notice in California. This is very serious. That is just in May. This is why I am so pleased, I say to Senator Dodd, you and Senator Shelby were able to get as far as you did get. And you did get pretty far. You are doing some very important work here. The dream of home ownership exists in every corner of America. I will tell my colleagues, I grew up in a family who never owned a home. We didn't own a home when I was growing up. We couldn't do it. But when I got married and I was able to save the money and get my first home, it was a moment I will never forget, the first day in that home, and I owned it for 40 years. I literally kissed the walls when I moved in. I raised my kids there. That home provided the stability for our family, and it provided the wherewithal for us to be able to get funds, refinance the house, fix it up. It grew along with our family. It was a wonderful investment for us. I want that for all Americans. I don't want to help people who speculated. This bill doesn't do that. This has to be a home owner. I don't want to help people who thought they would make a quick buck. That is not what this bill is about. This bill is about preserving home ownership, helping communities. I have to say, I know there is a lot of politics that is being played. This is a political year. But we have to set aside our partisan differences. There are Republicans who are having trouble staying in their homes, and there are Democrats who are having trouble staying in their homes. So we need to set aside our differences. In this bill we also help with the low-income housing tax credit. So the changes in this bill are long overdue, and they are critically needed now. So no bill is perfect for any one of us. Each of us would have written it better for our own State. I indicated why it needs to be made stronger for my State. But am I going to support it? Yes, I am, because certainly it is moving in the right direction. I thank Senator Dodd again for the work he has put into this bill. We need it so badly in our State. I know how hard it was for him. I am happy to yield to him for a question.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, this list of 20 States--and I see my friend from Florida is going to speak--of course, is included in here. These are the States. It is 28 States--27 plus DC, to be exact--where we have very high-cost housing. We are very grateful that Senator Shelby agreed to go over $600,000. Believe me, we need a little more boost. But we have to do this. We have to get it done. I guess the reason I wanted to speak today is to not only thank Senator Dodd and Senator Shelby for bridging the partisan divide, but to say we cannot play politics with this subject matter. This isn't about some ideological issue; this is about people being thrown out of their castles--their home--and thrown into the moat, and it is about communities that then begin to wither. It is about local governments that begin to struggle. It is about crime rates that begin to go up. It is about dreams that are dashed and consumer confidence that goes down the tubes at a time when we are fighting off a broad recession and unemployment. So I just hope--I don't know where this will lead. We haven't had much success in the past couple of weeks getting anything done around here. But I am hopeful that because all of us are hit by this that we will set aside the politics in this political year, we will leave it at the door, and for a few shining moments come together and get this thing going because I have read this bill. Would I have written it better? Yes. Would Senator Dodd have changed it? Yes. Would Senator Martinez? Absolutely. All of us would have done it our way. Senator Salazar would have done it his way. We, Senator Dodd and Senator Shelby, have done some important things in this bill, and some things that are very straightforward. What impresses me the most is that they did build on the success of a program that America used years ago and wound up not costing any money. We actually make some money for the taxpayers. So this is a tried-and- true idea, and we need to try it again, just getting those counselors out there to sit down with the parties and find a person to talk to. I was just saying while Senator Dodd was in the cloakroom that I had five hearings myself around the State, and my staff did, and one of the biggest problems was that some people couldn't find out who to talk to. So when you have a counselor who has that expertise, one out of two times, they told us, they solved the problem. So thank you again. I will be supporting this bill. I would just say to my colleagues who aren't here, but to any within the sound of my voice, any amendments that will further this and make this a better bill, great. But if they are nasty, ``let's try to score political points'' amendments, I hope we will all have the courage to say no to those. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, it is wonderful to join the Presiding Officer, Senator Landrieu, Senator Feinstein, and the other women who have come to join us. I have to say to Senator Mikulski, the dean of the Democratic women, how much I appreciate her leadership and her ability to connect with the American people. When she brought us together the first time--and it was a while back--she said: You know, we women at home make a checklist of the things we have to do for our families and the things we have to accomplish for the people who depend on us. Well, let's do the same thing for the people whom we represent. What emerged is each of the Democratic women picked an issue she knew we needed to have change on, and we have heard about some of them. As the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I am so proud to have that opportunity--the first woman, the first Californian to chair this committee. I can just say, because I know this: We desperately need change when it comes to the environment. When we say the word ``environment,'' some people think about the beautiful ocean, and they should; and they think about beautiful wetlands, and they should; and they think about beautiful lakes and streams and rivers and clean, flowing waterfalls, and they think about beautiful creatures that roam our environment, and all of that is true. But when we cut through it, a clean and healthy environment means healthy families. Healthy families means people who can work, kids who can go to school and not have to leave because they have asthma. These are the things we have to remember. For 7\1/2\ long years now, since George Bush became President, this administration has done everything it could to roll back landmark environmental laws. What are these laws? The Clean Air Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the Superfund Act. In every case, they have done this. They have also stopped our progress on global warming. We had a bill on the floor a couple of weeks ago. They sent out a message that they were going to veto this bill, even before they saw it amended. Imagine. I wish to tell the Senate--and I know there are a lot of folks who are watching in their offices--what I mean specifically by this terrible record of the Bush administration and why we want change on the environment. The first thing George Bush did--and I don't know if the Presiding Officer remembers--when he became the President in terms of the environment is try to weaken safe drinking water standards. He tried to actually roll back the standard for arsenic in drinking water--arsenic in drinking water. He tried to slip it through, weaken the standard. I remember working with Senator Mikulski on that issue. We turned it back. We worked in the Senate, and we stopped it. Then, a National Academy of Sciences study found that EPA had actually underestimated the cancer risks from arsenic in tap water, yet there was an effort to roll back the standard for arsenic. Then there is perchlorate. Thirty-five States have a real problem-- most of our States--with perchlorate that has seeped into drinking water and seeped, therefore, into some of our agricultural products. Perchlorate comes from rocket fuel. It is a very dangerous leftover from rocket fuel. Let me tell my colleagues, it poses risks to the thyroid and special risks to pregnant women and infants. The Bush administration not only has failed to set a standard for perchlorate, but it has stopped enforcing a law that says the water companies and the water utilities have to let people know how much perchlorate is in their drinking water. They no longer have to test for perchlorate. They have not set a standard. Here is their excuse: We don't have enough information. Massachusetts had enough information; they set a standard. California had enough information; they set a standard. But the great big Federal, National Government doesn't have enough information. We know perchlorate is dangerous, we know it is an endocrine disrupter, and we know what that means for pregnant women and children. It is bad news. They are doing nothing. That is why we have the environment on our checklist for change. Mercury. Mercury is toxic to the brain. Let me repeat that. Mercury is toxic to the brain. We know that. There is no question about it. The Bush administration, under pressure from big utilities--I ask unanimous consent for 1 more minute.

Mrs. BOXER. The Bush administration, under pressure from big utilities, set weak requirements for toxic mercury emissions, and now there is a big court case, and believe me, they are going to lose it. There are other things. They slowed down Superfund cleanup. They are not protecting endangered species. They are weak on protecting us from smog pollution, particulate matter that gets into our lungs. We are talking about life and death, and then we are talking about global warming, the future of the planet. Today, the President said to forget the offshore oil drilling moratorium in the most pristine waters of our coastline. Go in there and let the oil companies drill. What he didn't tell the American people is his father put that moratorium in place. What he didn't tell the American people is that there are 68 million acres of untapped leases the oil companies hold that they haven't drilled on, and he would put at risk God's gift that we have been given on these coastlines and he would jeopardize a $60 billion coastal recreation and tourism economy that fosters more than 2 million jobs. I am so proud to stand with the Presiding Officer and the Democratic women of the Senate, standing next to this checklist for change: Equal pay for equal work, good jobs, health care, taking care of our military and our veterans, restoring our credibility in the world, protecting the environment, making us energy independent, preparing for future disasters, enforcing fiscal accountability, and protecting the family checkbook. This is a moment for change, and we Democratic women of the Senate wish to be agents of that change. I thank Senator Mikulski, and thank you very much, Madam President. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER. That is right. The Senator from Maryland is reiterating what I said in my statement. Absolutely. We have learned that they have 68 million acres of leases, both onshore and offshore, and they are not drilling. They are holding those, I believe, for speculative purposes. Now the President announces--even without them lifting a finger on those leases, he wants to destroy the coastlines that are the economic engine of the Senator's State, my State, and many other coastal States. Yes.

Mrs. BOXER. Absolutely. My friend is so right. The Senator from Maryland is right. This Senator from California can tell you this: His proposal to destroy our coastline is an economic disaster, and he has avoided going after the oil companies and their supply manipulation. He is ignoring the speculators. We believe they have added $30 to $50 to a barrel of oil. He is ignoring his Antitrust Division. He is doing nothing. By the way, his own administration said today that even if they lifted this moratoria and every single inch was drilled--let's just say that were true, although we would never allow that to happen--we wouldn't feel one penny of price reduction until 2030. What he said is not true. This is changing the subject, and he is not using the power of the Presidency to go after the people who are manipulating this market. My colleague is correct.

Mrs. BOXER. Exactly right, I say to my friend.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I am pleased to ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing a longtime community leader in Inland Southern California, Maurice A. Calderon, as he retires from a long career of service and support to his community. Maurice Calderon as a board member for Banning Unified School District, as a trustee with the San Jacinto Community College District, and as a trustee for the San Bernardino Valley College Foundation. Mr. Calderon has also served as a member of the foundation for the University of California, Riverside. Maurice Calderon has also served his community through involvement in a number of community organizations. He is a member of the Inland Empire Hispanic Chamber of Commerce and the Inland Empire African American Chamber of Commerce. He has served as the director of the Inland Empire Economic Partnership, and as chairman of the Inland Empire Hispanic Leadership Council. Maurice is also the president of Sinfonia Mexicana, a Hispanic symphony that provides cultural enrichment throughout the region. For his longstanding work throughout various communities, Maurice Calderon has been the recipient of numerous titles of distinction and awards of commendation. He has been named the ``Father of the Year'' and the ``Citizen of the Year'' by the cities of Banning and Beaumont, respectively. Hispanic Lifestyle Magazine and the Inland Empire Hispanic Chamber of Commerce named him the ``Hispanic of the Year,'' and he was named to the Southern California Native American and Latino Hall of Fame. In April 2004, he was honored as the recipient of the Reconocimiento Ohtli Award, which is given by the Mexican Ministry of Foreign Affairs to role models who have successfully contributed to the well-being of their communities. And in 2005, the city of Banning acknowledged Maurice and the entire Calderon family for their more than 100 years of community service, and named a street in their honor, ``Calderon Way.'' As Mr. Calderon retires, he can look back on a distinguished career of service to his community, to education, and to cultural awareness. I join with members of his community in wishing him a wonderful retirement.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I am pleased to ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Michael E. Brown, Ph.D., as he retires from a long and successful career as a leader in education. This month, Dr. Brown will retire as assistant superintendent of instructional services with Rialto Unified School District in southern California, and can look back on a proud career of service and distinction in education and community leadership. Dr. Brown will retire after almost four decades of leadership in Rialto Unified School District. Dr. Brown's service in education began in 1971 when he began as a teacher in Rialto teaching fifth and sixth grade. In 1976 Dr. Brown was awarded his Ph.D. in education from the University of California, Riverside. Dr. Brown would then serve the district as a program specialist, as a principal, as director of curriculum, and as assistant superintendent. Numerous schools under his leadership have received California Distinguished Schools Awards, and all elementary schools in the district have seen increased API scores. Middle schools and high schools have similarly seen growth in their AVID programs both in student participation and success. Dr. Brown has also worked tirelessly in his community. He served in the California National Guard from 1969 through 1975, and has served in various community organizations such as Kiwanis International, Phi Delta Kappa International, the Boy Scouts of America, and as an active member in his church congregation. As he retires from almost four decades in education, I am pleased to ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing his many accomplishments.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise in support of H.R. 5749, Emergency Extended Unemployment Compensation Act. Earlier this month we were met with troubling news about our economy. We learned that the unemployment rate, one of the strongest indicators of our Nation's economic health, experienced the largest one month increase since 1986, from 5 percent to 5.5 percent. In real terms, this jump in the unemployment rate means that between April and May, 49,000 more American workers lost their jobs. In 2008, our economy has lost a total of 324,000 jobs. In my State of California, the unemployment rate is the third highest in the Nation at 6.2 percent. Some areas in California's Central Valley have unemployment rates as high as 10 to 12 percent. Families in these communities are struggling in this economy, and with Governor Schwarzenegger's recently declared a drought emergency in the Central Valley, farmers there tell me that because of the water shortage, fewer acres will be planted this year, which will mean fewer jobs in this area of the State with already skyrocketing unemployment. Yet in this time of economic uncertainty, when so many workers can't make ends meet because they have lost their jobs, Senate Republicans today did as they have done so many times this year on issues important to American families and said ``no'' to passing a stand-alone unemployment benefits extension bill. This bill, passed with strong bipartisan support by the House, could have been sent to the President immediately so that unemployed workers who have exhausted their unemployment benefits can get additional support while they try and find a new job. Opponents of this bill wrongly suggest that extending benefits for an additional period of time in high unemployment States creates a disincentive for unemployed workers to seek a job. This flawed logic is not only demeaning to hard-working Americans, it also ignores the reality for job seekers pounding the pavement in today's economy. Unemployed workers are out looking for new jobs, but because of the economic downturn, there are fewer and fewer opportunities to find work. Today there are only 3.7 million existing job opportunities for 8.5 million unemployed workers. In addition, the long-term unemployment rate is 62 percent higher than it was in January of 2001, when our country was in a recession. This means that more and more unemployed workers are running out of benefits before finding new jobs. In California, over 50 percent of newly unemployed workers are exhausting their benefits before finding a new job. Californians are also struggling to deal with rising fuel and food costs, making it even more difficult for the 324,000 Americans who have lost their jobs this year to provide for their families. We learned today that the national gas price average increased yet again to $4.08, up $1.07 from last year. Prices for food staples like bread and eggs are up as high as 20 percent from last year. Food banks and soup kitchens, like the Alameda County Food Bank in California, are seeing demand for food aid grow as much as 40 percent over last year, with the increase in visits a direct result of the high unemployment rate. Senate Democrats know that we must act now to provide additional relief to workers who have exhausted their benefits and in areas of the country with high unemployment. This bill would immediately provide up to 13 weeks of extended unemployment benefits in every state to workers who have exhausted the 26 weeks of regular unemployment benefits. Workers in States with higher levels of unemployment, like California, would be eligible for 26 weeks of extended benefits. This bill will also provide an additional stimulus to the Nation's economy. Leading economists tell us that for every dollar the Federal Government spends on unemployment benefits, it adds $1.64 to the national gross domestic product. We know that people out of work use extended unemployment benefits to meet the essential needs of their families, to buy groceries and to pay bills. With the much-needed resources this bill provides, jobless workers will help inject money into the lagging economy. This bill is a win for struggling families and a win for the Nation's economy, and it is unfortunate that Senate Republicans refused to work with us to consider this important legislation.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Will my friend yield for a brief question?

Mrs. BOXER. In a minute or less, I am rather stunned to hear that the Republican leader is suggesting that Republican Senators vote no to move to a bill for the purpose of making improvements in Medicare. I ask my friend, because people sometimes lose track of what happens, would this not be the third straight bill in a row where the Republicans have been fierce defenders of the status quo--global warming, gas prices, and now fixing Medicare? Am I correct on that?

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Is it my understanding the Democrats now have 30 minutes reserved? Is that correct?

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I was interested to hear my friend from Oklahoma, the ranking member on my Environment and Public Works Committee, talk about how much the Republicans care about gas prices after they just tanked our effort to deal with them. It is extraordinary what we are seeing here, right before the eyes of the American people. Last week they said ``no'' to global warming legislation. Global warming is real. The Senator from Oklahoma reminds me of the people who kept saying: No, the Earth is flat. No, cigarettes don't cause cancer. He is lining up with those people. The vast majority of scientists tell us global warming is real. He bragged about how he beat us last week. Let me take a look at that. He said it was a wonderful thing that happened on Friday, when the Senate didn't get 60 votes to continue the debate on global warming and address it. He said it was a wonderful thing. I want to say to the 89 percent of the American people, who believe global warming must be addressed, because it is a moral issue that is facing us, because we have to protect this planet for our grandkids, because we need to get off foreign oil, have alternatives to foreign gas--and yes, in my State it is well over $4--we have to address it. He is celebrating the fact that we fell short. Let me tell you we fell short by only six votes. We fell short by six votes. We had 46 Democrats for dealing with global warming now, plus 8 Republicans--54. We needed 60. He is celebrating. We are going to be celebrating come November because we are going to have a President who is going to work with us on global warming legislation and we are going to have six more votes here in the Senate, I can predict. Because my friends on the other side of the aisle--with a few exceptions, very few--are fierce defenders of the status quo. Let me repeat that. The leadership in the Republican Party and the vast majority of Republicans, save a handful, are fierce defenders of the status quo. They say no to global warming legislation which will get us off foreign oil, which will get us off big oil. They say no, today, to going after the speculators, going after big oil, making them disgorge some of that money so we can invest it in alternatives; going after OPEC and saying: If you are colluding, you are going to be held accountable. They said: No, no, no. Yes, to the status quo; no to positive change for the American people. They come down to the floor and they are happy about it. It is unbelievable to me. The wonderful thing that did happen on Friday is we reached a high water mark. We reached 54 votes. The last vote on the global warming bill, it was 38. The even more wonderful part is out of the people who were absent, who sent in letters who said they were with us, were the two Presidential candidates. So all that talk about celebrating the fact that we stopped global warming legislation is kind of a death rattle, in my opinion, for those people who do not believe they have to address this challenge of our generation. I am looking at the young people here today, their beautiful faces. They deserve to have a good life in the future. I want to say to them today: You are here in an historic time because the window is closing for action. With global warming, if you don't act, you lose valuable time, because the carbon stays in the atmosphere for so long it becomes more difficult to get it out of the atmosphere. Last week we came up six votes short even though we reached a high water mark on the bill. At the end of the day we now have a roadmap for change--46 Democrats voted yes to tackle global warming, 8 Republicans voted yes. What does that tell you about the two parties? When I took the gavel in January after the Democrats took back this majority by only the slimmest of margins, I said I wanted to put global warming on the map because under the leadership of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle we did nothing to address it. The President has basically--and we know this for sure--interfered with the scientists in his own administration and not allowed the facts to be told. So we had 25 hearings. The second thing I wanted to do is make it bipartisan. John Warner said, ``I am with you. I care about my grandkids. I care about national security.'' The Naval Academy did a very important study that this is going to be the No. 1 cause of wars in the future as we have desperate refugees running away from droughts and famine and flooding and all the rest, and rising sea levels. When John Warner came across, I knew I had accomplished that. He did it for me. He made it bipartisan. Then we got the strong bill out of the committee, we improved it, we got it to the floor, and we knew it had a lot of work. We got a letter from 10 people who voted for it who said: Look, Senator, and Harry Reid, we need to work on it. We understand that is what we have to do when our next President says let's go, let's get a bill through. So I think it is appalling that my ranking member of the Environment Committee would come down here and celebrate the fact that we were not able to move forward on global warming legislation, and furthermore said it is not real. He brought that out again. I do thank those who engaged in the debate, both pro and con. It was a landmark debate. I only regret that the Republicans filibustered and we had to take the bill off the floor because we could have gotten a very good bill. It was a very good bill to start with and we could have worked on it and made it even better. But, come November, we will see whether I am right or wrong. I think I will be right. One of the reasons I am right, and I believe we will have Senators here who are going to be hospitable to global warming legislation, is because we also need Senators who are hospitable to doing something about gas prices. This is an amazing chart. Since George Bush got into office--do we remember this? He and Dick Cheney were oil men. One of the reasons they urged for getting elected is: We know how to deal with the oil companies; leave it to us. We know how to deal with the Saudi Arabian princes; leave it to us. We will deal with it. They dealt with it. There was a 250-percent increase in the price of gas--$3.94. This is old. It is now $4. This I used last week. It is already old; today it is $4. In my State it is about $4.40. You can't keep up with the increases in the price of gas. This is what we are facing. So in the Senate today we said: All right, they said no to global warming legislation--which was a long-term answer to big oil. What we would have done is we would have had a cap-and-trade system that would have put a price on carbon, gone between the free marketplace, and that would have led to trillions of dollars, I say to my friend, trillions of dollars in investments by the private sector, cellulosic fuel, automobiles that get 150 miles per gallon, electric cars, all the rest. That is the long-term solution pushing down demand. We all know that. Pushing down demand. Now, the other side will say if you drill in a wildlife refuge it will solve your problems. No, it is false. Put aside that Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican President, set aside the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge and said this is a precious gift from God; set it aside. What are you going to do to God's creatures by drilling over there? Forget it. Put it aside for the moment and talk about what you get. You get 6 months' worth of oil. You cannot drill your way out of this. Someone said--I think it was Senator Menendez who made a great analogy. He said: Everybody says we are addicted to oil. Even our own President says we are addicted to oil. Let's say someone was addicted to drugs. Is the way to get them off drugs to give them 6 months' more worth of drugs? Does that help? No. No. No. We need to figure out a way to get off of foreign oil, get away from big oil, because we know the developing nations are gobbling it up. And we also know we have done so little, so little to address the issue of energy efficiency, fuel technology. It is a sad thing. We have lost so much time. Today at gas stations across the Nation, the American people are suffering. They are facing sticker shock. They are having to choose, choose between something they might buy at the store for dinner and filling up the tank. That is a fact. That is a fact. I will never forget when Vice President Cheney first sat down for his closed-door meetings with oil executives and energy industry lobbyists, and we said: We want to know what you are talking about, Mr. Vice President. What is going on behind those closed doors? And he said: Oh, I am working to make energy affordable. You know what gas was? It was $1.50. That is when he sat down with his friends in oil companies. We cannot find out what they talked about, but I can tell you this: Whatever they talked about was good for them, was good for the oil companies, was good for big oil. Gas is $4.40 a gallon in many California locations. I have seen gas prices as high as $5 in my State. So we have secret meetings with Dick Cheney with the energy people, and gas went up 250 percent. Again, these are old numbers. It is even worse. Gas went up 82 cents since January--82 cents since January. Again, it is even more than that now. It is way more than that, close to 90 cents. In every case, you see the Bush administration saying they are going to do something. They never did anything. A lot of talk, a lot of yack, a lot of visits with Saudi Arabia, a lot of kissing on the cheek with the princes, holding hands. We saw the picture. What happened? This. Straight up. Two oil men in the White House. Is it any wonder? Many of us said at the time, other people said: It is terrific, two oil men at the White House. They will know how to deal with the oil companies. Well, they sure knew how to deal with the oil companies. The oil companies never had it so good. And my Republican friends right here, with few exceptions, have fallen all over themselves to give those very same companies huge tax breaks, even as they are making record profits. Listen to this: Last year the oil companies pocketed $124 billion in profits, up from $29 billion in 2002. That means they have quadrupled their profits since 2002, four times. Let's think about it, America. What happened to your salary? Did your salary quadruple? I think we know the answer to that. We know Americans are losing ground. The average family is losing ground, thousands of dollars in lost revenue. Their salaries are not keeping up with inflation. The price of gas is out of sight. It is hard for them to get health care. Health care costs are out of sight. Food prices are going up. Everything is going up--tuition. But what do my friends on the other side say? They want to give oil companies these great big tax breaks. They did in 2004 and 2005. Believe it or not, they gave them tax breaks worth over $17 billion over the next decade. And these tax breaks are free and clear. We did not even say--they did not say in the legislation oil companies have to invest in renewables, improving infrastructure, increasing capacity. No. You know what they did with the money? They spent $185 billion on stock buybacks instead of investing in clean, alternative fuels or new refinery utilization. And as my friend in the chair said today, they are spending more on public relations than the average family spends in a lifetime because they know, when the American people really understand this, what the American people will think. Have you seen those beautiful commercials by the oil companies? We really care. We are doing so much. Do you think they are doing all of these wonderful things? No, most of the money is spent on buying back their stock. Unchecked speculation. I have heard some experts say that about one- third of the price of oil a barrel is due to speculation. We tried to pass a bill today that, first of all, said to the oil companies: That is the end of your break. You need to either invest your profits in the future, in other technologies, or give it back to us, and we will do it on behalf of the American people. They said no. They will protect big oil until they have to pay the political price. Protect big oil, protect foreign oil. They protect foreign oil, OPEC. We said the Attorney General should be able to sue a foreign company or foreign country if they colluded on the price of oil. Oh, no, they could not do that to big oil either. They are in love with big oil over there. They are in love with foreign oil. My people are saying: Enough is enough is enough is enough. It is no wonder that the American people want change, and they are going to get change. They are going to get it in November. They are going to bring it to us. They are going to bring us change. The former oil men in the Bush administration have been uninterested in taking on the unchecked speculation. This vote reflects the administration. That is it. They all marched together. Well, I think they are marching off a plank. The American people are smart and getting smarter every day. They know the pain they are feeling at the pump has a cost. They understand the speculation on futures. We address that. We address that in the legislation on which they voted no. We said: You cannot take money and speculate on futures in an out-of- town market, an out-of-country market. You have to have transparency. Oh, no, they do not want transparency. That would be bad for the oil companies. If anyone ever says to you: There is no difference between Democrats and Republicans, look at the debate we had on global warming, look at the vote on global warming, and look at the vote we had today. There is an enormous difference. And it has to do with whose side you are on. In the case today, it was are you on the side of big oil and foreign oil or are you on the side of the American people? It is pretty clear. You have to look at Iraq. We have been in Iraq more than 5 long years. Do you remember what President Bush said when he went in? He said Iraqi oil would pay for the reconstruction of Iraq. He did. And look at what we have spent on this war. We are going broke on this war. We are into it longer than we were in World War II. We are looking at trillions of dollars at the end of the day in the actual cost of the war, the cost of the reconstruction, the cost of taking care of our beautiful, brave, courageous, and incomparable men and women who are coming home in desperate shape. What happened to George Bush's promise? They stand up, we stand down. Well, I think they are standing up. Why are we not standing down? And why did the oil not work out? Why were we not able to pay for reconstruction from the price of the oil? It is very simple: We have had a destabilization in the region because of the war, and that contributed to these high oil prices. What a disaster--a disaster, a disaster, a disaster. We would have today, had we had the opportunity to move forward on our legislation, not only sent a signal which could have done something, we could have investigated these companies for the kinds of illegal actions I believe some of them are taking. We could have gone after companies and countries for collusion. We could have gone after these excess profits and said: Look, we want everyone to do well, but let's have some fairness. I will tell you, the American people are not going to stand for it. So we have had a very interesting few days. And my friend, the ranking member from Oklahoma, says how he is so excited. Friday was his best day--his best day--his best day--when a majority of the Senate said, yes, let's take up global warming legislation, and he opposed it. His days are numbered on this point. All we need is six more Senators who are different than the many on the other side, and we are going to get that. People want this. We know 89 percent of the people want us to address global warming. When we do it in the right way, we will send a signal that America is ready to lead. America is ready to work with the world so that we get off of foreign oil. We are not dependent on countries we do not want to be dependent on; we are not dependent on big companies that can care less about our families. They do not care one whit about our families. The executives are making millions and millions and millions of dollars every year on salaries, on bonuses, on expense accounts. Well, the average family in America is struggling. So I hope the American people are watching. Last week we had a monumental vote, the high water mark. But they stopped us. Today, we had a good vote also, but they stopped us. They stopped us from doing anything about gas prices, and their answer is drill in a wildlife reserve which, at most, gives us 6 months of oil, and, by the way, destroys a gift from God that a Republican President said is not an answer. That is feeding the addiction. Are there places in America we could drill? Yes, there are. But what we need is a whole different long-term strategy. And that long-term strategy and fighting global warming will throw us off this dependance. That will make us a leader in the world. That will create green jobs, technologies we can export, and we will have an economic renaissance in the Nation. We will be the leader the world again when it comes to the environment and the good-paying jobs. In the short term, we need to go after the speculators like we wanted to do today. We need to go after companies and countries who are colluding. These are the things we need to do. We were ready, willing, and able to do it today. In closing I will say this: Whose side are you on? That is a question that every one of us has to ask ourselves. It ought to be: I am on the side of the American people, of America's families, of America's middle class, who is getting squeezed. It ought not be: I am on the side of big oil. And my Republican friends on the other side again, on the vote last week and this vote, have chosen sides. And the American people will decide who they want to have leading the country. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am honored to remember former Member of the House of Representatives Lionel Van Deerlin, who passed away on May 18, 2008, at the age of 93. Lionel Van Deerlin, affectionately known as ``Van,'' served in Congress for over 18 years, representing San Diego. His legislative legacy includes a key role in revising the Federal laws to permit California to set tougher emission standards than the rest of the Nation. As chairman of the House Subcommittee on Communications, he actively worked to update the 1934 Federal Communications Act in order to keep up with changing technologies. A leader in ethics, he was among the first congressional leaders to voluntarily disclose his personal finances. Lionel was born in Los Angeles, CA, on July 25, 1914, and grew up in north San Diego County. He attended the University of Southern California, where he was editor of the Daily Trojan, and graduated in 1937. After graduation, he worked in journalism until World War II. Lionel honorably served our Nation in the U.S. Army, returning to journalism and San Diego after the war. A gentleman, a statesman, and a friend to all, Van earned the respect of his colleagues on both sides of the aisle. He tirelessly worked on behalf of the people of San Diego. His legacy is substantial in San Diego--he helped to establish the Naval Medical Center San Diego as well as a Veterans' Administration hospital. Lionel's spirit continues in the generations of leaders he mentored and counseled. After leaving Congress in 1981, Van returned to journalism as a political columnist, first for the San Diego Tribune and later for the Union-Tribune. His columns, which were eagerly read by San Diegans regardless of political party, were remarkable for the clarity and common sense they brought to the political process. As a writer, his chief targets were hypocrisy and vested interests, while his chief passions were American participatory democracy and the San Diego region he knew and served so well. Van is survived by three daughters: Mary Susan, Victoria, and Elizabeth Louise; two sons: Jeff and John; and four grandchildren. Our country has lost a remarkable public servant and tutor with the passing of Lionel Van Deerlin. His contributions to the people of San Diego, the State of California, and our Nation should be remembered.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Dr. Donald F. Averill as he retires after almost 50 years of service in education. This month, Dr. Donald Averill will retire as chancellor of the San Bernardino Community College District, SBCCD. Prior to joining SBCCD, Dr. Averill served as the CEO of Palo Verde College. Dr. Averill more than doubled the enrollment of full-time students to provide increased educational opportunities throughout the region. His leadership enabled physical and economic growth of academic infrastructure and enabled Palo Verde College to earn accreditation. During his tenure as the CEO for the San Bernardino Community College District, he greatly improved the economic capacities of the district and increased cooperation between colleges and secondary institutions, increasing enrollment in the region by 45 percent. Throughout his 47 years of service and commitment to improvements in education, Dr. Donald Averill provided leadership both in California higher education and in the San Bernardino community. He served as chairman of the Economic and Workforce Development Advisory Committee to the California Community College Board of Governors for 2 years and chaired the Human Resources Commission of the Association of California Community College Administrators for 5 years. He served the city of La Habra, CA, as a planning commissioner for 12 years. Dr. Averill has also served as president of the American Heart Association in Glendale, CA. As he retires from providing leadership and guidance to the faculty, students, and staff of numerous institutions of higher education and to countless communities in California, I am pleased to ask my colleagues to join me in honoring a true leader in education and community development.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring California Assembly member Nell Soto on a lifetime of achievement and advocacy for the people of California. Throughout her tenure in both the California Assembly and the California State senate, Nell Soto has worked tirelessly to improve the quality of life for the people of California and our Nation. Despite recent health challenges, this June she will celebrate her 82nd birthday and can look back on a proud career in public service. A sixth-generation resident of the City of Pomona, Nell Soto has been a lifelong member of the southern California community and has been a strong advocate for its communities throughout her life. Before coming to the California Legislature, Nell Soto served 12 years on the city council in Pomona. Her late husband Philip Soto served two terms in the state legislature from 1962 to 1966. Nell was the first woman from the San Gabriel Valley to serve on the South Coast Air Quality Management Board. She served 10 years as a public affairs representative with the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. In 1998 she was elected to the California Assembly and in March of 2000 won a special election to secure a seat in the California State senate, a seat that she held until 2006. She now serves once again in the California Assembly. Throughout her tenure in the California Legislature, Nell has been an impassioned advocate for stronger communities and an improved quality of life and has worked to make improvements throughout the California educational system. She has been a strong advocate of improvements in infrastructure and transportation and worked hard to secure the development of the Alameda Corridor East, an important rail transportation project in inland southern California. She has been an equally impassioned advocate for crime prevention, public safety, and the environment, and recently served as chair of the Assembly Select Committee on Perchlorate Contamination and has worked to secure funding for improvements in drinking water safety from perchlorate contamination. A lifelong resident of southern California, mother of 6, grandmother of 11, great-grandmother of 3, and spirited supporter of community advocacy and selfless service, Nell Soto is a wonderful public servant. As she looks back on decades of leadership and celebrates her 82nd birthday, I am pleased to ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing her good work.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank our colleagues. I wish to say, in addition to the names Senator Warner put in yesterday, we had statements from Senators Obama, Clinton, Biden, and Kennedy, which means if all had been here, the vote would have been 54 votes. We are very pleased with this and we thank them very much.

Mrs. BOXER

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

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Klobuchar be given 15 minutes to open the debate on our side.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time between 3 p.m. and 4 p.m. be under the control of Senator Inhofe or his designee, and that the order with respect to the farm bill be delayed until 4:10 p.m.