Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to speak on the leader time for up to 3 minutes. That would come off Senator Reid's time. When Senator McConnell comes, I will yield to him at that time.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I think this is a great moment for the Senate. I was hoping that we could, in fact, get 60 votes for this particular version of the Energy bill. It does not appear likely that will happen for reasons I am sure Senator Domenici has stated. I think the bill, as it is before us, deserves to get 60 votes, deserves to get 80 votes, deserves to get 100 votes, because at a time of very high prices of oil, gas at the pump going toward $4 in my State, heating oil going up at a rapid rate, affecting people mostly in the Northeast and other areas, we should take bold action. I wish to say to Senator Bingaman in particular how grateful I am for the work he has put into this measure. I am sure Senator Domenici did as well, but I had to work very closely with Senator Bingaman and his staff and my staff. This has been very difficult. I also wish to say that Speaker Pelosi showed her amazing skill working with John Dingell and others over in the House to get this bill to where it is today. The American people are very clear with us: They want action on the issues that impact them every single day. And this is one. I want to say that the other day--and you know this well, Mr. President, because you are on the Environment and Public Works Committee--we voted out a very strong bill, a very strong bill to deal with the problem of global warming. One of the great things about dealing with global warming is that the cure for global warming is going to mean less reliance on foreign oil, alternative fuels, and the rest. We are clearly taking action in this Senate to move to solve the problems that face us. I see Senator McConnell is here, and I will conclude in 30 seconds. I hope we will have strong support for this bill. We have many provisions in here that were voted unanimously out of the Environment Committee, including green buildings and DOE solar wall and many other energy efficiencies in our Government buildings that I think are going to work well for the taxpayers, and finally doing something about CAFE standards--very important. So congratulations to everyone who worked so hard getting to this point. I hope we can get 60 votes. If we don't, I hope we can certainly get 60 votes for the next try. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise in opposition of the Peru Trade Promotion Agreement. While the Peru Trade Promotion Agreement includes important labor and environmental provisions, I do not believe that it represents a large enough departure from the failed NAFTA-style free trade model to merit my support. Instead of fast-tracking new trade agreements through Congress, we need to take a deep breath and assess the impact of our failed trade policies and take the country and our economy in a better direction. We should focus on fixing the problems created by NAFTA and other trade agreements, extending trade adjustment assistance for displaced workers, reinvigorating our domestic economy, and creating jobs for hard-working Americans. The inclusion of labor and environmental protections in the Peru deal is an important and positive development, but without an administration willing to enforce these provisions, the promises ring hollow. The Bush administration has an abysmal record when it comes to enforcing trade regulations, and it is not a stretch of the imagination to assume that their unwillingness to enforce regulations will extend to Peru. Without strong enforcement of these important labor and environmental provisions, they are nothing more than words on a piece of paper. Already we are seeing the Peruvian government backtrack on the spirit of the environmental provisions included in the agreement. International environmental groups have documented a number of recent actions taken by Peru's government that provide a serious cause for alarm. As an example, in September, a law was proposed to remove half a million acres from the Bahuaja-Sonene National Park and devote the area to oil and gas exploration and exploitation. The Superintendent of Peru's natural protected areas determined that excluding the zone from the national park would violate both the Peruvian Constitution and Peru's trade promotion agreement obligations. The whistleblower in this situation was immediately fired from his post. And in July, Peru offered concessions for oil and gas exploration and exploitation for over a fifth of the Peruvian Amazon rainforest despite a report by the national ombudsman determining that elements of this process were illegal What we are seeing with these recent developments in Peru related to environmental protections is that despite increased enforcement mechanisms in the free trade agreement for labor and for the environment, the NAFTA model perpetuates a ``race to the bottom'' that has become the unfortunate hallmark of free trade agreements. When trade agreements are used only as a tool to provide cheap labor for American companies, everyone loses. The United States can be a leader in the global economy if we promote fair trade that creates sustainable markets for American goods and services, protects the environment and improves wages and standards of living for American and foreign workers.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am honored to remember former Member of the House of Representatives Augustus Hawkins, who passed away on November 10, 2007, at the age of 100. Augustus Freeman Hawkins was the first African American from California to be elected to Congress. He was a champion of workers, fair housing, and civil rights, and Hawkins represented south Los Angeles, first in the State legislature and then in Congress, for more than half a century. Augustus was born in Shreveport, LA, on Aug. 31, 1907, the youngest of five children of Nyanza and Hattie Helena Hawkins. His family arrived in Los Angeles soon after World War I when Hawkins was 11. He attended Jefferson High School and earned a degree from UCLA in 1931. He began his public service career in an era that was far less congenial to minority politicians, serving as a State assemblyman from 1935 until 1962, when he won election to the U.S. House of Representatives, as the civil rights movement was taking center stage. He served in the House from 1963 to 1991, and I was proud to serve with him. While soft-spoken, Hawkins was fiery in defense of his constituents. At the time of the 1965 Watts riots in his district, he declared that police had been ``abusive and arrogant and have attempted to control things by force, not by more modern methods of control.'' When Hawkins retired at 83, he was widely praised for his unflagging legislative efforts to help bring those who had been left out of the system into the mainstream. His legislative legacy includes a key role in shaping Federal statutes, most importantly as sponsor of the section of the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act that created the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Hawkins fought with President after President for minimum- wage increases and, with Senator Hubert Humphrey, wrote the Humphrey- Hawkins Act of 1978 that was designed to reduce unemployment and inflation. He is survived by two stepdaughters, Barbara A. Hammond and Brenda L. Stevenson; a stepson, Michael A. Taylor; two grandchildren; and one great-grandchild. Our Nation lost an amazing public servant and mentor with the passing of Augustus Freeman Hawkins, but his legacy to the people of south Los Angeles, the State of California, and all of America should be remembered. (At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the memory of a dedicated public servant, Officer John Paul Miller of the California Highway Patrol. On the evening of November 16, 2007, while searching for a reported reckless drunk driver, Officer Miller's life was tragically cut short in the line of duty when his patrol vehicle struck a tree on a rural road near Livermore. Officer Miller graduated from the California Highway Patrol Academy in March 2007 and joined the Dublin CHP office soon afterward. Officer Miller dutifully served the citizens and communities of Contra Costa County. Although his time in the uniform was all too short, Officer Miller demonstrated a passion for law enforcement and commitment to helping others, qualities that enabled him to become a respected member of the California Highway Patrol. Officer Miller's colleagues shall always remember him for his gregarious nature and devotion to serving the public. Officer Miller is survived by his wife Stephanie and children, Chandler and Reese. When he was not on duty or spending time with his beloved family, Officer Miller was an avid sportsman who enjoyed playing basketball, football, and golf. Officer John Paul Miller served the State of California with honor and distinction and fulfilled his oath as an officer of the law. His contributions to law enforcement and the many lives that he touched will serve as a shining example of his legacy. We shall always be grateful for Officer Miller's service and the sacrifices he made while serving and protecting the people of California.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am pleased to recognize the 100th anniversary of the Roseville Fire Department in Roseville, CA. In November 1907, a group of downtown merchants in the railroad community of Roseville came together and formed the Citizens Volunteer Fire Department after devastating fires destroyed and threatened many of their businesses. The department opened under the leadership of fire chief W.B. Musson, who was joined by assistant fire chief W.T. Butler and 16 volunteer firefighters to protect the town of approximately 6,000 residents. When the city of Roseville was incorporated in 1909, the department was officially named the ``Roseville Fire Department'' and for over 50 years worked out of two fire stations and added a third in 1961. In 1947, after 40 years as a volunteer fire department, the Roseville Fire Department hired a full-time firefighting team to protect the rapidly growing city. Today, the Roseville Fire Department has 130 employees serving over 100,000 residents with 8 fire stations, a 3-acre training facility, a technical rescue team, a hazardous materials team and emergency medical technicians at every fire station. As the firefighters and community celebrate the Roseville Fire Department's centennial anniversary, I would like to congratulate and thank all of the brave men and women of the Roseville Fire Department who have proudly served their community over the past 100 years.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, in October, residents of San Bernardino, San Diego, Orange, Los Angeles, Ventura, Riverside, and Santa Barbara counties faced some of the most horrific fires in California's history. At one point, flames driven by fierce Santa Ana winds forced as many as one million Californians to flee their homes and communities. During these firestorms, 14 people lost their lives. More than 100 people sustained injuries. Almost 3,000 structures, two-thirds of them homes, were destroyed. More than 500,000 acres burned. The impact of these tragic fires will be felt by the people of California for a long time, but we will do everything we can to help rebuild the damaged lives, homes, and communities. It is often during the very worst of times that we see the very best of humanity. I want to express my deep appreciation to all those at the local, county, State, and Federal levels who worked tirelessly to get the job done, including CalFire, the California National Guard, the U.S. Forest Service, the U.S. Navy, the Marines, the Border Patrol, the National Park Service and, above all, the county and local fire agencies. I was deeply touched by the thousands of courageous and tireless firefighters who worked around the clock saving the lives of people caught in the fire's path, battling flames, and protecting neighborhoods. Our California firefighters and those who traveled across the country to help risked their own lives to protect the lives and homes of others. We are so grateful to these heroes, and will never forget their bravery and dedication. Thankfully, no firefighters or public safety officers lost their lives during the fires. But several of our firefighters were injured, some of them seriously, and I send them and their families my best wishes for a full recovery. As we pay tribute to our firefighters, we must recognize their valor with not just words, but also deeds. That means standing up for their health and welfare, particularly as they face challenges that can last a lifetime. Our firefighters are there for all of us when we need them most and they deserve the same.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the memory of the late Robert Gerard Goulet, the beloved recording, movie, theater, and television star. Mr. Goulet passed away on October 30, 2007. He was 73 years old. Robert Gerard Goulet was born on November 26, 1933, in Lawrence, MA, to French Canadian parents, Jeanette and Joseph Goulet. Shortly after his father's untimely passing, he and his family moved to Alberta, Canada. His abundant talents and charisma were evident at a young age, as Mr. Goulet became a popular singer on Canadian television as a precocious teenager. In 1960, Mr. Goulet made his Broadway debut as Sir Lancelot in the original production of ``Camelot,'' starring opposite Julie Andrews and Richard Burton. After hearing Mr. Goulet sing during the first day of rehearsals, Mr. Burton compared his rich baritone voice to ``the voice of an angel.'' Mr. Goulet's performance won him wide acclaim, including the Theater World Award, and recognition as one of Broadway's most captivating and talented stars. In 1968, Mr. Goulet won the Tony Award for best actor in a musical for his role as Jacques Bonnard in ``The Happy Time.'' A consummate entertainer, Mr. Goulet, who won a Grammy Award for Best New Artist in 1962, has recorded over 60 albums. Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, he starred in a number of his own television specials and was a popular guest on ``The Ed Sullivan Show'' and other variety programs. Mr. Goulet could also boast of an impressive resume on the big screen, as he was featured in several successful movies, including ``Honeymoon Hotel,'' ``Beetlejuice,'' and ``Toy Story II.'' Over the course of a career that spanned over half a century, Mr. Goulet's many accomplishments and successes cemented his status as one of America's most versatile and beloved entertainers in recent memory. A prostate cancer survivor, Mr. Goulet played an active role in helping to increase the awareness of prostate health. He was a spokesman for the American Cancer Society and he regularly visited communities to educate others on the importance of cancer awareness, prevention, and early detection. In 2005, he was awarded the ``Human Spirit Award'' by The Wellness Community. Throughout an illustrious career, Robert Gerard Goulet used his prestigious talents to bring joy and entertainment to millions of his fans and admirers from the world over. Mr. Goulet has left behind a legacy of performing excellence. He will be missed. Mr. Goulet is survived by his wife Vera; two sons, Christopher and Michael; daughter Nicolette; three grandchildren, Jordan, Gerard, and Solange.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the accomplishments of Maxine Pierce Frost, a longtime community leader in Riverside, CA, and nationally renown leader in education. This month, Maxine Frost will retire from the Riverside Unified School District after 40 years of dedicated service. Since 1967, Maxine Frost has provided leadership to her community, the State of California, and our Nation. As a board member of the Riverside Unified School District, Frost has seen great change in education policy throughout her tenure. Being a member of the first large school district in the Nation to voluntarily desegregate, she has helped pave the way for similar changes across America. Throughout periods of intense growth in the State and the region, Maxine Frost has worked diligently to ensure that students and educators are provided with adequate resources. The Riverside Unified School District has grown from roughly 23,000 students to 43,000 students during Frost's tenure. Throughout this period of intense growth, she has maintained her resolve that every student have the resources they need to succeed. Numerous academic committees across the State of California and our Nation have benefitted from the leadership and experience of Maxine Frost. She has held a number of leadership posts: president of the Pacific Region of National School Boards Association, the California School Boards Association Legislative Network, the California Association of Suburban School Districts, the Schools Accrediting Commissions, the Council for Basic Education, and the California Association of Student Council's Board of Directors. In 1981, after serving as president of the California School Boards Association, California Governor George Deukmejian appointed her to the Education Commission of the States, in which she served alongside future President William Jefferson Clinton, who chaired the commission at that time. On October 16, 2006, the Riverside Unified School District adopted a resolution to designate one of its elementary schools as, Maxine Frost Elementary School, in honor of her longtime service and dedication to the community. As she retires from four decades of service and dedication to the students, families, and educators of California and our Nation, I am pleased to ask my colleagues to join me in thanking her for her fine work. Her tremendous leadership will be long remembered.

Mrs. BOXER

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

Mrs. BOXER. Thank you very much, Mr. President. Mr. President, I thank Senator Harkin because I know he is going to be speaking shortly, and I wanted to follow Senator Sanders. As the Chair of the Environment Committee, I was very interested in his presentation. I thank him for caring so deeply about global warming. The thing we have to do around here is get a good bill down to the floor. Because everything Senator Sanders talks about--geothermal, solar--everything he talks about--green jobs--depends on our ability to get a good bill to the floor of the Senate. What also is interesting is that Senator Sanders called the Lieberman-Warner bill a very strong bill. I agree with him. It is a very strong bill. And that is before we even make some perfecting amendments out of subcommittee. I think it is interesting, it is the evening time now. Senator Harkin is on the floor, and Senator Cardin is the Presiding Officer. Senator Harkin is a cosponsor of the Lieberman-Warner bill. Senator Harkin is truly a great conservationist, as we are going to hear from him. He gave a presentation to us at our caucus lunch that showed how deeply committed he is to this country's environment. The fact that he is on the Lieberman-Warner bill gave a great lift and a great boost to that piece of legislation. Mr. Cardin, the Senator from Maryland, sitting in the chair, our Presiding Officer, has played a tremendous role already in moving forward the legislation if we are going to address global warming. There is not any question that the ravages of global warming are around the corner. Is it going to be 20 years? Is it going to be 10 years? Do we already see it? Some say yes--in Darfur, in some of the weather patterns, in some of the fires, in some of the floods, in some of the droughts--because the scientists tell us that unfettered global warming will lead to extremes in weather. So it is coming down the track right at us. We have some options in this Senate as to what we are going to do about it. We can hold out for the ``perfect'' bill. I can say, as someone who wrote a bill with Senator Jeffords, and then Senator Sanders: Oh, I know which bill is perfect for me; it is the bill I wrote. I know my friends in the Senate each could take their turn at writing a bill, and that bill would be ``perfect'' for that Senator. But this is a legislative body, and if you have 100 ``perfects,'' and we cannot agree to come together on a very good bill, we get nothing done. I would suggest that for those who, very well-intentioned, decide to turn their back on a very good bill because it is not their idea of ``perfect,'' I think that is an irresponsible position to find yourself in. I feel very strongly about that. There is much about the Lieberman-Warner bill I am going to work to strengthen in the full committee. If the bill gets to the floor, I am going to work hard to strengthen it. But I know, as long as it is a very strong bill, we need to move it forward. So we could hold out for the ``perfect.'' That is very dangerous because that leads to no bill. And no bill--doing nothing about global warming in the face of all the science--would be very irresponsible. The next thing we could do is have a bill that is very weak. I think a very weak bill is dangerous because people will think, ``Oh, they have taken care of global warming,'' when, in fact, we have not. You may be stuck with a weak bill, and you cannot strengthen it, so that is a problem too. So it seems to me we could hold out for the ``perfect,'' and that means no bill, we could have a dangerously weak bill, which is a very bad option, or we could have a very good bill. We know that. We have people who are saying: Wait a minute, this bill, Lieberman-Warner, is too weak. We heard some of that on the floor tonight. It is too weak. I want an 80-percent cut in 2050, and it is 65 percent. So is the solution to do nothing? I say no. Then we have many people on the other side who say this bill is too strong. It is kind of like the three bears--what is just right? I think what is just right is a very strong bill that moves us forward, that asserts the real dangers of global warming, and we know what that is: sea level rise. Those of us who went to Greenland saw what could happen if that sheet melts. We could see huge increases in sea level for all of us who represent coastal States, and the whole country and the world will suffer. The intelligence community, the Department of Defense--they are saying to us: With a few feet rise in sea level, we are going to have refugee problems, we are going to have every problem in the world. So the fact is, we can't turn our backs. We had a hearing on the public health implications of unfettered global warming. The star witness was the head of the CDC, Julie Gerberding, Dr. Gerberding. She is the top doc of the country. She had very strong views that we have to look at the public health impacts. For example, what is going to happen to our elderly when heat levels rise and they can't seek refuge? What is going to happen to our children when they are swimming in lakes and streams and rivers and those bodies of water are so warm that dangerous amoebas live in those waters? What is going to happen to them? What is going to happen to the people of the world when they can't get the food they need? So what happened was the White House redacted page after page of their own head of the CDC--they redacted page after page of their own head of the CDC. Her testimony was redacted. When we wrote and asked for it, the answer came back from the White House Counsel: Oh, no, we couldn't possibly send you this. This is a breach of executive privilege and the rest. Can you believe, Mr. President, that the people of this country who pay the taxes for the CDC employees cannot hear what the top doc has to say about the ravages--the potential ravages--of global warming? This is what we are facing. Yet we see signs that the people who think our bill doesn't go far enough are going to team up with the people who want to kill this legislation. What a tragedy that would be. And who loses? The people of the United States of America. These new technologies that are going to save us, the ones Senator Sanders talked about--he talked with great passion about solar and wind and all the rest--you are not going to get it, folks, unless you have a bill that puts a price on carbon. If you hold out for your version of the perfect, trust me, it isn't going to happen, and you give false hope to people--false hope to people. So I would just say to my colleagues who may be listening that we have a golden opportunity in the Environment Committee. We have held more than 20 hearings on global warming. We have this bipartisan bill. We have gotten it through the subcommittee. We are working to make it better, get it through the full committee and onto the floor of the Senate, where we will see where people stand. We will have amendments that range from one extreme to the other, and we will see where people stand on global warming. I would say to you, Mr. President, coming from a State that has done so much about this already, we are late to the game. We are late to the dance. We are late to the party. But we are not too late, unless everybody stands up and says: If I don't get it my way, then I will show you the highway. We have a lot of that going on already. We have a President who really won't talk to us about anything. He won't talk to us about Iraq; he won't meet us halfway there. He won't talk to us about CHIP; he won't meet us halfway there. He won't talk to us about education funding; he won't meet us halfway there. Won't, won't, won't, won't, won't. He vetoed the Water Resources Development Act. We overrode it. He still has never said he was wrong. There is too much of that. We in the Senate have to show that we are adult enough to admit that the perfect cannot be the enemy of the good, particularly when there is so much at stake. So I am excited about the work of the Environment Committee, and I am so pleased we had a bipartisan breakthrough. I am so grateful to all the groups out there who are helping us, who are giving us the courage to move forward, because, believe me, special interests are going to be pounding us, pounding us, pounding us. To wrap this up, there are always people who say no to the science. There are always people who say: Oh, no, HIV doesn't cause AIDS, I don't believe it. There are always people who say cigarette smoking doesn't cause lung cancer. I am sure there were people who said to Jonas Salk: Your vaccine idea is just not going to work. We have to go with the consensus view, and we have it on our side. We know we have to act. So it is going to be an exciting time in the Environment Committee. It is going to be an exciting time here on the floor when this legislation comes to the floor. I don't know exactly when that will happen, but it will happen, and when it does we will have a chance to fulfill our responsibility not just to our generation but to our kids' generation and our grandkids and future generations. I see young people sitting here on the floor of the Senate helping us out every day. Their generation has so much at stake. I met with some young people from the UC system, UC Santa Cruz. They are going to 100 percent renewable energy to run UC Santa Cruz, and all of the different campuses, UC campuses, are going to try to do that. So whether we vote here or we don't vote here, the people are way ahead of us. How sad it is if we were to walk away from this challenge because it wasn't just right on page 102 or page 6. It is never going to be perfect, I say to my colleagues, but we have an obligation to come together. We did it with the Clean Water Act years ago, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Endangered Species Act. We have really moved forward, and we became a leader in the world. We are behind the world today, and the world is looking to us. So I am excited about this challenge, and I thank Senator Sanders for his passion, for coming down and making the case for solar energy, making the case for wind energy. But I will say to him and everyone else within the sound of my voice that it isn't going to happen unless this Congress sets up a cap-and-trade system with mandatory cuts in carbon. It just isn't going to happen the way it should. Thank you very much, Mr. President, and I thank, Senator Harkin for this time. I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, our country is at a critical point in our history. This President and Vice President have shown reckless disregard for the rule of law and the institutions sworn to uphold it. Now, more than ever before, we need an Attorney General who can exercise independent judgment and who will exercise independent judgment. We need an Attorney General who shows every day, by word and by deed, that the United States is still the world's standard bearer for the rule of law. We need an Attorney General who will truly turn the page and write a new chapter for the Justice Department and for our country. It is very rare that I vote no on these kinds of nominations. I do it now and then. But I have to say, regretfully, tonight I have concluded Judge Mukasey does not meet the critical standard and at this time I feel very strongly that he should not be confirmed. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, thank you very much. Mr. President, I rise to express my opposition to the nomination of Judge Michael Mukasey to be our next Attorney General. I thank Chairman Leahy and his committee, including Senator Specter and members I see here, Senator Kennedy, for working hard to examine the nominee's record and, frankly, for asking the tough questions, which I think gave us a real look into the mind and the heart of this man. I have respect for Judge Mukasey's background, his dedication to public service, his reputation as a distinguished jurist, and as a good man. But when evaluating our Nation's chief law enforcement official, we must weigh far more than background and likability. Particularly now--particularly now--when we are following the disastrous tenure of Alberto Gonzales, particularly now, when we have lost so much more leadership in the world because of what is happening in Iraq, and, unfortunately, what has happened in Abu Ghraib, we need to look past likability and qualifications. We must firmly believe our next Attorney General must always put his loyalty to the Constitution above his loyalty to the President. We have a President and a Vice President who have dangerously abused their Executive power and who have undermined the public trust. This is not a partisan opinion. Listen to what John Dean, White House Counsel to President Richard Nixon, wrote: Not since Nixon left the White House have we had such greed over presidential power, and never before have we had such political paranoia. . . . History never exactly repeats itself, but it does some rather good imitations. When an administration spies on its own citizens without a warrant, strips habeas corpus rights from those held by America, and fires its own U.S. attorneys for political reasons, that is a shocking abuse of Executive power. When an administration thinks it can just ignore an entire coequal branch of Government, even using signing statements to reinterpret or disregard more than 750 laws that Congress has passed, that is a shocking abuse of Executive power. When an administration silences its own officials, rewriting testimony, redacting testimony, shelving reports, refusing to let experts publicly speak the truth, that is a shocking abuse of Executive power. I have seen this so many times with this administration. The latest time was with global warming experts whose truths the White House find ``inconvenient.'' And what did they do? They redacted testimony of the CDC Director, the Center for Disease Control Director, when we asked her to come before the Environment Committee of the Senate and tell us what would the health effects of unfettered global warming be. What would happen? The White House muzzled her by slashing her testimony. They gave all kinds of excuses as to why it was done. None of them were real. Then, when I wrote to the President, and I said: Mr. President, we need to hear what Dr. Gerberding has to say about the impacts of global warming on the health of our people; Mr. Fielding, White House Counsel, wrote back: Oh, gee, we are not going to send you her original testimony you have asked for. Oh, no, that would be an abuse of executive privilege. Let me restate that: That would be an abuse of the separation of powers. And he asserted executive privilege. Imagine asserting executive privilege for something like the health effects of global warming. It is unbelievable. So now we need an Attorney General who is going to be the people's lawyer, not the President's lawyer, not the one who is going to tell us: Oh, yeah, we just cannot do anything about it, Congress. We need an Attorney General who is going to check this unprecedented abuse of power, not rubberstamp it. Unfortunately, because of the deep and thorough questioning of the Judiciary Committee, and my reading of that, I cannot support Judge Mukasey. Judge Mukasey ruled that President Bush had the authority to detain American citizens as enemy combatants without criminal charges or habeas corpus rights; likewise, during his confirmation hearing, Judge Mukasey failed to demonstrate that he would independently evaluate this President's broad assertion of executive privilege. When asked if he would permit the U.S. attorney to execute congressional contempt citations when the White House refuses to provide documents to Congress, Judge Mukasey did not say yes. He should have said yes. The statute is clear. The statute is clear that when Congress issues a contempt citation, the U.S. attorney is required to bring the matter to a grand jury. What Judge Mukasey said was, he would have to look at it. He would have to see if it really was reasonable. The fact is, that is not what the statute says. There is no ``reasonable'' test. When the Congress issues a contempt citation, the U.S. attorney is required to bring the matter to a grand jury. If the President says ``executive privilege,'' it does not matter. But the judge said he would look at it and see if the President was being reasonable. So we have to send a clear and unequivocal message to the Justice Department staff. We have to send a clear message to the American people and to the world that the United States honors and respects and will never turn away from our Constitution. It is so amazing to me. We have a crisis in Pakistan where a dictator--unfortunately, is what I am saying General Musharraf is behaving like--has suspended the Constitution--and everyone here, all of us, feel terrible about this, including the President of the United States, who, as I understand it, talked to him on the phone and told him to restore the Constitution-- and here we cannot get papers from this White House. I am not comparing that in any way, shape, or form to the kind of suspension of the Constitution we see abroad. But I am saying in this country--in this country--everyone assumes the Constitution will be followed. That is why we need an Attorney General now, in 2007, who is going to be so strong on the point. Yes, he should have said if Congress issues a contempt citation, of course, we will do what we have to do under the law. So it is not enough to hope the nominee will exercise independent judgment and stand up to this President and Vice President. We must know from the record before us that this nominee will uphold the Constitution and our laws and do it clearly and unequivocally. Now, that is a high standard. I admit that. But that is what the people of this great Nation deserve, nothing less. Unfortunately, Judge Mukasey's response to questions about torture do not meet the standard. During his confirmation hearing, the nominee was asked whether waterboarding is illegal. Now, I know a lot of people have discussed this, and perhaps we are all being repetitious. But I think we need to say how we feel. This is a moment for this Senate. This has been a long day for all of us. I know for me it has been a big day. I helped to lead, along with Senator Inhofe, an override of a very important bill. I had a hearing on global warming. I had a briefing on global warming. I have been at it, just as we all have. But I came out to the floor because I think this is an important moment where Members have to be heard. We must know from the record before us that the nominee will uphold the Constitution and our laws. And, yes, it is a high standard that the people deserve. So when the nominee was asked whether waterboarding is illegal, he responded if waterboarding is torture, then, in fact, it is unconstitutional. So I have to ask this rhetorical question: If waterboarding is torture? If? We are talking about a brutal interrogation technique that simulates drowning. Not surprisingly, members of the Judiciary Committee were not satisfied with this answer. And I praise them. They probed, they questioned, they asked again: Is waterboarding illegal? This time, the judge responded with a four-page letter that, once again, failed to answer. He called the question ``hypothetical.'' He said his legal opinion would depend on ``the actual facts and circumstances.'' Depend on ``the actual facts and circumstances'' if waterboarding is torture? Is this the message we want to send to the world, that our evaluation of a brutal tactic depends on ``facts and circumstances''? In fact, Judge Mukasey's answer was a bit too similar to a statement by Alberto Gonzales that the legality of torture techniques ``would depend on circumstances.'' This is not a clear answer. This is not unequivocal. And it is not what we need in an Attorney General now, in 2007, when the world is turning away from America as a moral leader. Teddy Roosevelt did not have to consider the ``facts and circumstances'' in 1902 when he court-martialed and removed an American general in the Philippines for allowing his troops to engage in waterboarding. That was 1902, the last century, the turn of the last century, and we have someone equivocating on this point? President Roosevelt said then nothing can justify the use of torture or inhuman conduct by our military. Senators McCain, Warner, and Graham did not have to consider ``the facts and circumstances'' when they wrote to Judge Mukasey: Waterboarding, under any circumstances, represents a clear violation of U.S. law. Waterboarding today is not a hypothetical. It is used in Burma against supporters of democracy. Waterboarding is an unconstitutional form of cruel and inhumane treatment. It is illegal under U.S. laws-- from the Torture Act, which prohibits acts ``specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering,'' to the Detainee Treatment Act, which prohibits ``cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.'' It is illegal under international laws, such as the Geneva Conventions, which are not quaint. Those conventions prohibit cruel, humiliating, and degrading treatment. Following World War II, the United States convicted several Japanese soldiers for waterboarding American and allied POWs. Let me repeat: Following World War II, the United States convicted several Japanese soldiers for waterboarding American and allied POWs. What kind of statement are we hearing from Judge Mukasey? Our law and our history are crystal clear, so why can't Judge Mukasey state in unequivocal terms that waterboarding is torture and that is illegal? Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute and I will sum up.

Mrs. BOXER

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

Mrs. BOXER. Thank you very much. Mr. President, Senator Inhofe will be here shortly. We have both been in a hearing on global warming, and on that one, we don't see eye to eye, but on this override, we very much see eye to eye.

Mrs. BOXER. If my colleague wouldn't mind, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a list showing nationwide support for overriding this Presidential veto, including national business and labor groups, agricultural groups, national water and infrastructure groups, State and local government support, national conservation groups, and local agencies and organizations.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I want to say while colleagues from both sides of the aisle are here how important this moment is. It is very unusual for a Congress to override a Presidential veto. This is only the 107th time it has been done in the history of the country. The first one was in the 1840s. President Tyler tried to buy some military equipment without getting the approval of Congress and that started the first successful override. Today I think we sent a message, as Republicans and Democrats, to the executive branch. Mr. President, why should we have to fight over everything? We shouldn't have to argue over making sure our infrastructure is strong. I say to Senator Inhofe, whom I don't see on the floor at the moment, but to his staff: Thank you so much for working with our staff. This has been quite an experience. As most of you know, Senator Inhofe and I don't exactly see eye to eye on everything, but on this, we were very much a team. I thank the majority leader, Senator Reid, for his strong support in working with us. I know it was a little annoying when he saw me coming down the hall every time. He sort of ducked, because he knew I was saying: When are we going to do WRDA?

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank Senator Byrd. I think it is interesting that he stands up to get order, because he teaches us every day what the Constitution means. The Constitution means that we, in fact, are an equal branch of Government. Today I think we proved that point. I say to Senator Landrieu and Senator Vitter, who isn't on the floor at the moment, but I want to say about Senator Landrieu what a fighter she is for her State. This bill fulfills a promise the President made on that very dark and gloomy night when he went out, with the eerie lights behind him, because he was right at ground zero of Katrina, and he said he would keep his commitment to the people of Louisiana; that he would protect them. Yet and still he vetoed this bill. I say to both Senators from Florida, whom I see on the floor, Senators Nelson and Martinez, how proud I am to have worked with them to make sure we fulfill our commitment to the Everglades. The trip I took with Senator Nelson and his wife, my husband and I, is embedded in my memory forever, and this bill sets us on a course we must follow. I say to communities all over the country, including my own, we know you have flood control needs, we know you need to keep up with imports and exports and make sure our ports function right. To those who want to preserve the environment, have restoration of the environment, we do that here. So this is a very important bill. The recreation industry is counting on us. This is one of those rare moments, in a very divided Senate, that we come together. I couldn't be more proud. In closing, I thank the following staffers, who have worked night and day: Bettina Poirier, Ken Kopocis, Jeff Rosato, Tyler Rushforth, Andy Wheeler, Ruth Van Mark, Angie Giancarlo, and Let Mon Lee. Also, I thank Senator Baucus's staff: Jo-Ellen Darcy and Paul Wilkins; and from Senator Isakson's staff, Mike Quiello. I mentioned Senator Inhofe's staff in that recitation of names. Without them, the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 would never be law. I am proud to advise my colleagues that it is now law. When that last vote was cast, and when our Presiding Officer announced the vote, this bill became the law of the land. We can be very proud it is. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

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

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today and tomorrow will be very special days for me here in the Senate because the Environment and Public Works Committee, led by myself and Senator Inhofe, comes forward united across party lines to lead the effort to override the President's veto of the Water Resources Development Act, a bill that will authorize the projects and policies of the Civil Works Program of the Army Corps of Engineers. I wish to thank Senator Inhofe for his kind comments and say that I think everybody knows that when it comes to the environment, Senator Inhofe and I don't exactly see eye to eye. But when it comes to building the infrastructure of the United States of America, taking care of the needs of our communities, making sure there is flood control, that we can move goods because we need to dredge so many of our port areas, when it comes to making sure we have recreation areas, and, yes, that we do the kind of environmental restoration that will help us with flood control--for example, restoring the great coastal wetlands of Louisiana--we can and do work together. Yesterday, the House voted 361 to 54 to override the President's veto of this critical legislation, giving us in the Senate the opportunity to make this bill the law of the land by our vote tomorrow. I note it is very rare that we have successful veto overrides. Why is it? Because in their genius, our Founders said we need quite a supermajority to do that. So it is rare, indeed, when we have a strong vote such as this to go against a President of either party, and I have served with four from both political parties. The signal it sends to the executive branch, in a moment such as this, is we are asserting ourselves as representatives of the people. We are saying: Mr. President, we shouldn't have to have a fight about this. This is something we should work on together. When we did pass the conference report, I remember asking the President rhetorically: Do we have to fight about everything? I don't think we should. Senator Inhofe and I can set aside our differences to work on this bill. It seems to me we represent basically the entire philosophy from one end to the other, and it seems to me we should have had the support of the executive branch. Today and tomorrow are also special days for the many people and communities across our Nation that have waited so long for this time to come, for this important legislation to become law. Indeed, when we finally accomplish this tomorrow--and I pray we do--it will be 7 years in the making, 7 years since we actually had a Water Resources Development Act. That is too long to wait. I say to all the communities across our great country waiting for desperately needed flood control, such as New Orleans and the gulf coast, such as Sacramento in my State of California, where 300,000 people are in jeopardy should there be a flooding problem, I say to all of you: The wait is nearly over and help is on the way. Again, I thank my ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Inhofe. We do share a commitment to shoring up our Nation's infrastructure, including its water resources. On some issues, as we know, we do not stand shoulder to shoulder, but on this issue, we have stood shoulder to shoulder to get the work done, and I think we will stand shoulder to shoulder in the future, as well as look at other infrastructure needs in our States and communities. I also thank the Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee chairman and ranking member, Senators Baucus and Isakson. They have been a very important part of our team helping to put this package together. Unfortunately, despite the bipartisan nature of this critical infrastructure investment and despite waiting 7 years, the President decided 7 years was not long enough and he vetoed the bill. I tell you the truth, I still cannot believe it. I know many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle spoke with the President and said to the President: Please understand, Mr. President, this is not an appropriations bill, this is not a spending bill, this is an authorization bill. Anyone who wants to learn more about that simply read the record of what Senator Inhofe--if not the most fiscal conservative member, certainly one of the most in this body--said about this bill. This bill is an authorization bill, and every single project has to go through the rigors of the appropriations process. But what we have to do is give the Corps the ability to complete repairs to levees, flood walls, and pumps that failed to protect the lives and property of those in New Orleans. Remember when the President spoke in Jackson Square in September 2005 and he offered a pledge to the American people. This is what he said that night. I remember the eeriness of the scene, where the President had come out of the darkness because there was no electricity in New Orleans, and the lights were lighting him. It was, in a way, a touching moment. What the President said was important. This is what he said: Throughout the area hit by the hurricane, we will do what it takes, we will stay as long as it takes to help citizens rebuild their communities and their lives. I do believe when you say that, you need to mean it. We will do what it takes. Yet we had tonight Senator Landrieu and Senator Vitter, both representing New Orleans and Louisiana and representing their people with great emotion and great conviction, begging for this bill because this bill will help make Louisiana whole. I traveled to New Orleans with several members of the committee to conduct a field hearing this year. Seven Senators were on that trip, a clear indication of how important protecting New Orleans and the gulf coast is to the Members of this Senate. We saw the needs of the New Orleans area, but we also saw the hope and the optimism of the people and the community leaders that the Federal Government would, in fact, keep its commitments. This bill makes our promises real. This bill makes the promises of the President of the United States real. This misguided veto only created further delay, and I beg my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to listen to Senator Inhofe, to listen to Senator Vitter, to listen to Senator Landrieu, to listen to my words tonight. WRDA also contains the authorization for Louisiana's Wetlands Restoration Program, wetlands that are critical to protecting south Louisiana from hurricanes and improving the environment. Before I talk about the critical flood threat facing Sacramento in my State of California, I wish to talk a little bit about Florida, and then I am going to yield 5 minutes to Senator Nelson. Not only did I get to go to New Orleans, but I got an amazing invitation from Senator Nelson. Let's just say it was more than an invitation; it was a strong urging. It was a begging. It was so important to Senator Nelson that I certainly could not say no. I went to see the Everglades with my own eyes. My husband came with me and Senator Nelson and his wife Grace greeted us there. We went out on a tour of the Everglades which we will never forget. I can tell you the beauty of that place is most extraordinary. It is just extraordinary. As Senator Nelson will explain much better than I, we have an area that is in crisis. We have a window in which we must act to make sure the water flows into the Everglades to keep it alive, the river of grass. One of the lasting memories of that trip as we went out and dusk fell and we were out and we saw the alligators out there, we saw what appeared to me--and, of course, Senator Nelson had seen this--I think he got more pleasure watching my face as I thought all of a sudden we were in a meadow. I almost thought: How could this boat actually be moving in a meadowland? It was not a meadowland. It was this river of grass. We saw wildlife actually jumping out of this river of grass onto trees. It was a spectacular moment. I thought, God has given us this gift, and it is our obligation, it is our duty, it is our responsibility to make sure others get to see this gift. At this time, I am happy to yield 7 minutes to Senator Nelson and I look forward to his remarks. I reserve my time.

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, how much time remains on my side?

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, before Senator Nelson leaves the floor, I again thank him for bringing me into this entire plan. I am glad I could be of help in saving the Everglades, and I think he has support on both sides of the aisle. There was an amazing story in the New York Times the other day about the Everglades and how we have to act. Madam President, you are one of the best environmentalists I know, and you know the window is closing for us on so many projects. We need to move now or it is too late. Once damage is irreparable, there is nothing more we can do. So I praise my friend, Senator Nelson. I also say that his whole family is dedicated to this issue. When I went out there and saw the love his family has for this area, the understanding they have, and how the whole community has been brought together by Senator Nelson, I think this is a seminal moment for his career because what we are doing is so critical. And as he points out, we can't move forward unless we have this authorization. The fact that we have to override a veto is sad. I mean, it is adding more time that we are losing. But I am hopeful that tomorrow, sometime perhaps even before noon, when the votes are taken, this bill will be the law of the land, and we can go back home and tell people we have, in fact, reached across party lines and done something for them, notwithstanding the President's objection. So I thank Senator Nelson. And, Madam President, I am going to yield 7 minutes to Senator Murray, but before I do, I want to talk about one particular project that is in this bill for California. We have many in here, but I think it is important that people understand when we looked at this bill, we looked at so many serious problems, where lives are at risk, and one place that is true is in the Sacramento region of California. As you know, that is our capital. This conference report, this important bill, allows the Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation to complete the necessary modifications at the existing Folsom Dam in California so we can protect 300,000 residents of Sacramento and the capital itself from horrific flooding. Madam President, imagine 300,000 people living in a very precarious situation. The capital itself is in a very precarious situation, and we know we can make it safe. That veto left our citizens at risk. But, hopefully, tomorrow we will change that. Sacramento is not only the capital of California, where we have 37 million people and growing, but it is also America's largest metropolitan area with less than 100-year flood control protection. So, again, it is America's largest metropolitan area with less than 100- year flood control protection. And for those who don't know what that means, we mean a flood that comes once in 100 years. That is what you have to plan for when you have so many people in harm's way. Statistically, Sacramento is four times as likely to be devastated by flooding than New Orleans was. Sacramento is situated at the confluence of two great rivers, the American River and the Sacramento River. The Sacramento River is born in the Southern Cascade Mountain Range, while the American River originates in the High Sierra. The city sits in a low valley, in a low valley where these two rivers meet. This large floodplain is one reason California has such productive farmland, and we all benefit from that. It is beautiful farmland. But as a result of growth, the Sacramento metropolitan area is now home to nearly half a million people and contains 165,000 homes, 1,300 government facilities, including the State capitol, and businesses providing 200,000 jobs. A major flood would cripple the Sacramento region's economy, significantly impair the operations of our government in our State, cause up to $15 billion in direct damages, up to $30 billion in total economic loss, and we can't even put a pricetag on the loss of life. In our State, we know about flooding, we know about fires, and we know about earthquakes. I know, Madam President, in your State you have gone through many natural disasters as well. In 1986, as a result of storms, 13 people were killed, 67 were injured, 1,300 homes were destroyed, and 967 businesses damaged--the total damage cost over $400 million. In 1997, 8 people were killed, 23,000 homes destroyed, and 2,000 businesses destroyed or damaged--the total damage was $1.8 billion. As the capital of the world's fifth largest economy, no one can deny it is important to protect the Sacramento region. I would simply say, in this bill we are taking care of this problem, and I want to thank the House for their strong support, particularly Doris Matsui and the late, wonderful Congressman Bob Matsui, who really got us started on this project. We are going to do the right thing for Sacramento. It means everything to our State. We also have many other important California projects in the bill-- the revitalizing Los Angeles River, restoring the Salton Sea, critical flood control projects, and dredging and navigation projects all throughout our communities. So this bill is really an economic lifeblood for California. It truly is. It is also a matter of life and death for our people. So today is a moving and a touching day. We did in about 8 months, as we took the gavel, what hasn't been done in 7 years. It is a prideful moment but much more important than that; it shows we can reach across party lines. It shows we can work together across State lines. It shows we can work together between the House and the Senate. This moment is about to come, and it is going to mean a great deal to the people of our country. Madam President, I yield 7 minutes to my dear friend from Washington State, Senator Patty Murray, who has been such a leader on these issues and many others.

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, how much time remains on our side?

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Washington. I think what she did in her presentation is give a message of hope. I think this is a signal, this vote tomorrow. It is a signal we can work together across party lines to get things done for the good of the American people. People want to see that and they are going to see it. The President said this bill lacked fiscal discipline. He doesn't realize, I guess, it has been 7 years in the making. We used to do these WRDA bills, these water resources bills, every 2 years. So there has been pent-up demand, the normal pent-up demand in a country that is growing, whose economy is growing, that is importing more and exporting more goods. Of course we are going to have a pent-up demand. Then, when you put on top of that the disastrous consequences from Katrina and Rita and the fact that we are getting more floods and we are having more problems, you realize this bill is a very fair and defensible one. Again, as Senator Inhofe said, we don't spend a dime. This is an authorization bill, the first step in bringing Federal resources and expertise to a project that is developed at the local level. Every one of these projects is brought to us from our communities. That means the communities are willing to put up funds and our funding is so important because it spurs on these projects. I think what is sort of getting to the American people is the fact that, as the President says, a bill such as this, which is an authorizing bill, is too large. He seems to have a blank check for ventures overseas--$12 billion a month is going out the door, $12 billion a month for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. This bill equals literally 2 months of that funding. It has taken us 7 years. Put it into perspective. This bill that authorizes all these important flood control projects, navigation projects, recreation projects, environmental restoration projects--all these bills add up to 2 months in Iraq and Afghanistan. Then we read on the front page of the Washington Post the other day that the administration is paying millions of dollars to fix a dam in Iraq. I am all for that. I don't want to see anyone hurt in Iraq. But I don't want to see anyone hurt in Sacramento or in Seattle or in New Orleans or in any of the towns in Mississippi. I don't want to see us lose the Everglades. The fact of the matter is, I think the President is on weak ground in vetoing this bill that is so important for the public works of the country while spending so much on the public works of countries abroad. This is an investment in America we will be making tomorrow morning, if all is well, and we see that same kind of vote we had the last time. We can stand tall and proud. Seven years is too long a wait for a bill that authorizes essential programs, such as navigation, flood control, ecosystem restoration--but we are ready to go. I think this bill meets our communities' needs. Some of them are unmet needs. Some of them are acute needs. Make no mistake, the projects that are authorized in this bill that I hope we will again pass tomorrow--again I hope we will override the President's veto--are going to protect thousands of homes and the lives of millions from catastrophic flooding. It is going to help us restore wetlands, estuaries, and rivers of our Nation--places where wildlife thrives and our families go to enjoy the outdoors. Indeed, as hunting, fishing, boating, camping, and other outdoor industries boom, this bill is an important part of keeping our recreation economy thriving. It also says, yes, our ports need attention. The waterways need to have capacity. We need to make shipping easier, safer, and efficient, so it keeps the economy moving. So much of our economy is dependent on water resources. Our ports and harbors are the gateway to the world. Our manufactured goods, such as autos and computer chips, move through those ports. Our agricultural goods, such as grains, wines, and fruit, pass through our ports and harbors to be sold around the world. Goods come in and they get distributed to the entire country. We are talking about thousands of jobs. We are talking about moving goods. We are talking about recreation. We are talking about 360 million visits a year to our lakes and our beaches and other areas; 25 million people visit a Corps project at least once a year and that generates 600,000 jobs. Let me say, tomorrow or later tonight my colleagues may hear some complaint about the fact that we didn't do enough Corps reform. I wish to say Members on both sides of the aisle spent a great deal of time on this issue. Senator Feingold has been a prime mover in this area, and I greatly respect the work he has done, but I have to say, as I have said to him, I know he wants more. But we went a long way. This is a good package. We have a truly independent review process. I think we actually made that independent review process more independent. We have outside experts, free of political pressure, coming in and examining all aspects of the environmental, economic, and engineering components of a project study. These panels will be able to receive and evaluate public comments. The panels will be available to advise the Corps throughout the entire development process. The bill requires the first updates of the Corps planning principles and guidelines since 1983, when President Reagan was in the White House. The bill will make the Corps mitigate the impact of its projects the same as any other party and make sure mitigation is done in kind, up front, and not as an afterthought. We included safety assurance reviews, increased watershed planning, authorized a levee safety assessment program, and expedited the deauthorization of the backlog of unconstructed projects. But Senator Feingold still believes we should have done more. Frankly, I would love to do more, and I will work on this in the future. But we went as far as we could go. We cannot make the perfect the enemy of the good. I find myself saying that over and over around here. We have to do good work. The only perfect work is the work each of us wants to do. I know what is perfect. Senator Cantwell knows what is perfect. Senator Inhofe knows what is perfect. If we write our own bill, to us it is perfect. But we have 100 of us, 100 different ``perfects.'' It means we have to reach across the aisle and work together. I say to Senator Feingold, even though he is not on the floor today, thank you for your leadership, but please reconsider your opposition. Vote with us on the override. We have gone a long way. We have acted in good faith, and we will continue to work with you in the future on so many of the important reform issues you bring to this floor. Tomorrow is a very big day for me as chairman of the committee, for Senator Inhofe, who actually started this bill when he had the gavel. He brought it pretty close to being the law, but we didn't quite get it over the line. He has worked with me as a solid team member. I think it is going to be a great day for the Congress. I think it is going to be a great day for the Constitution. What we are saying: Mr. President, we are elected too. We count too. The American people vote for us too. When so many of us tell you we believe strongly that we need to meet the infrastructure needs of our country, we hope you would come to the table. This time you chose not to do so. We hope in the future you will join us. It is a great day for the Constitution. The Framers of the Constitution foresaw this. They said: If you have an executive who decides to veto something that is a crying need in the Nation, and everybody agrees--67 of us, or two-thirds of those present and voting, can override a veto. Tomorrow is going to be a great day for the health and safety of the people of my State of California, of the United States. I look forward to coming to the floor tomorrow. I think Senator Inhofe and I will divide 15 minutes, and we will, once more, lay out in shorter form why we think it is essential to override this ill-advised veto. Madam President, thank you so much for your consideration, and for your work on this bill.