Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Well, absolutely, I say to my friend, and again I thank him for yielding for another question. Several of our offices are part of this model project to see how energy efficient we can be. It is a pretty straightforward way for us to lead by example. The other question I have for my colleague is this: The bill that is on the Senate floor, which Senator Reid worked so hard to put together, along with Senator Bingaman, myself, and Senator Inouye and others-- Senator Kerry was involved, and I know my friend was involved as the assistant leader. There are other provisions in this bill--which is why I am so hopeful we will get this done--that take this notion of the Federal Government being a model to our buildings as well. I am not sure my friend is aware of the exact number, but the Federal Government either runs or operates 8,000 buildings--8,000 buildings. When my friend talks about global warming, it is a fact that in America 39 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions comes from buildings. So if we can set the tone here, and we can move forward with a bipartisan vote--we were able to pass a lighting efficiency bill for the Federal Government, which is included. This also has a component where grants will be given across this country to cities and counties to make their buildings energy efficient in terms of lighting. It will save money, and it will reduce the carbon footprint. Then, with the help of Senators Lautenberg and Warner, we got another piece of legislation included in this bill, which is called the green buildings bill, which also impacts all new and existing Federal buildings and also requires the EPA to come out with a model of green buildings for schools. So we will help our schools because you are so right when you talked about your 11-year-old grandson. I have a 12- year-old grandson, as you know. They are going to ask those tough questions, and they may well ask it of the schools they are in too. So I wanted to make sure my friend knew, since we really are talking more with the leadership of Senator Bingaman, who has been working on the most contentious amendments, that there is so much in the underlying bill that came out of his committee, my committee, and other committees that is strong, and that is why we would hate to see this derailed. This would be an enormous setback. The people want us to reach across party lines and take care of business, and an energy policy is going to take care of business.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, thank you so much. I thank Senator Bingaman very much for this amendment we have worked very hard on for days now. I am delighted we are able to offer it. I see my ranking member is here because he has an amendment that in concept--I am going to look at the details--in concept makes a lot of sense. In terms of this amendment, I hope I will be able to support it because what we are trying to make sure of is that in the new fuels program, this bill, we do not lose any ground in terms of the Clean Air Act so we still are able to give EPA important authority under the Clean Air Act to mitigate any adverse air quality impacts that might result from the increased use of renewable fuels. What we learned when we dealt with MTBE, which was an additive in gasoline, was we were not prepared for any adverse impacts from MTBE. We thought it was going to be the answer. As you know, MTBE permeated the water supplies in many States. We thought it was going to clean up the air and, guess what, it did. But it created havoc with our water quality. We want to make sure--we worked hard on this--that in this new fuels program, we do not backslide and that we are able to have all the protections we need. So at first, we fixed the water problem and now this is fixing the air quality problem. What we do is, we give EPA authority under the Clean Air Act to consider impact on water quality when regulating fuel. Such authority, as I say, will prevent future MTBE situations. We require EPA to contract with the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a comprehensive study of the environmental impact of increasing use of renewable fuels. The study will analyze impacts of renewable fuels on air quality, water quality, land-use patterns, deforestation rates, greenhouse gas emissions, ecologically important areas, and the long-term ability to produce biomass feedstocks. Now, I wanted to say to my ranking member, Senator Inhofe, if I can have his attention, that I know what he is trying to do in his amendment in many ways parallels this. We, in this amendment, make sure that EPA can look at the long-term to produce biomass feedstock because that is a very important point. I think the Senator and I both care about this. I think the Senator and I both care that the EPA is not going to lose jurisdiction over this new fuels program. The amendment to me is also exciting because it includes a grant program for biofuels that achieve at least a 50-percent reduction of lifecycle emissions of greenhouse gases. So what we are saying is, we want innovation, and we are saying we will start a grant program so we get that technology that we all know is going to, in fact, step up and meet the challenge of global warming. There are so many ways we can meet the challenges of reducing our carbon footprint. One way is to have fuels that have a 50-percent better carbon footprint. This amendment ensures that EPA will play a critical role in protecting our environment from any adverse environmental impact that may be realized from an increase in the production and use of renewable fuels. So it is pretty simple. The Senator from New Mexico and I have been in very close contact over these last several days. I have been helping him to manage this bill, although I have to say, he is very competent at doing it himself. But I have given him my advice and my help and the help of my good staff. We did have a worry at the very beginning that we did not want to live to see another MTBE problem, that is, unintended consequences of a new fuels program and unintended consequence. So how we would protect against is to be very vigilant, and we are very vigilant. We say to the EPA: Make sure that whatever these fuels are, they are real good for our people, good for our air, good for our water, good for our land use, and also our long-term ability to produce biomass feedstocks. Again, we go a step further we set up a grant program for new fuels, biofuels that achieve at least a 50-percent reduction in the lifecycle emissions of greenhouse gases. This particular program is authorized at $500 million. Of course, it is subject to appropriations. I do not have the need to speak any longer on this amendment. I would retain the balance of my time Senator Bingaman gave me. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER. May I ask my friend to yield. It can come off my time.

Mrs. BOXER. Thank you so much. Let me say to my ranking member I agree with him. We tried that approach. We were not able to gain ground. So I am with you. But we were not able to do it in our negotiation with the Energy Committee. So we went as far as we could go, and I think we have made tremendous progress. Again, it was give and take and it was tough and your staff was very helpful as they were helping us get the best we could get. But I think after this amendment, we can foresee a future where any President--this one said he would not do it, but a future President could take the whole fuels program and eliminate EPA. So I would hope my friend would join me in this. The other part, we are asking for reports from the EPA, we are not giving them authority over these issues. We are going to get information from them. That information we can share with local and State. So I know my friend is going to give it some real hard thought, as I am about his amendment. But perhaps we can wind up supporting each other's amendments. But we will see where we go from here. But I say to my friend, he is absolutely right, striking the offending language would have been great for me, but we were not able to achieve that with the Energy Committee.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I say to the Senator, if you could yield me about 2 minutes.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator. Mr. President, the Senator from Illinois has asked if he could have a minute and a half. If there is no objection, I suggest we allow that to happen at this time, and I will then follow him with 2 minutes.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I just wanted to say I hope amendment No. 1693 that has been offered by Senator Bingaman and myself will be overwhelmingly supported by both sides. We know what happens when we ignore unintended consequences. I think this amendment makes sure we don't experience another MTBE; that, in fact, we are careful, regardless of what the fuels turn out to be, because we are not picking winners and losers. We are saying: Let technology go. As a matter of fact, in this program we have to assist in the development and production of biofuels, cellulosic. So what we don't know is when these fuels come, what are they going to do to the environment? We all want to be free of foreign oil. Every one of us. But we don't want to make mistakes. So I hope this amendment No. 1693 will be strongly supported. It ensures that the EPA stays involved. It doesn't give away all the powers of EPA to the Department of Energy. We just need to make sure what we are doing in the future is sound. I think Senator Inhofe has made a very important point about corn. There are wonderful things about corn, but there are some negatives.

Mrs. BOXER. I think this first amendment can protect against these problems. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to reflect on the work of Bill Simmons, the director of the Yuba County Office of Education's Regional Career Center, and recognize Mr. Simmons' 21 years with the Yuba County Office of Education and commend his more than five decades of service to his country and his community. In 1954, Bill Simmons began his 24-year career with the U.S. Air Force. He retired in 1977 as a first sergeant for the 9th Field Maintenance Squadron at Beale Air Force Base in Marysville, CA. After his retirement from the U.S. Air Force, Mr. Simmons remained in Marysville and began a long career of service to his community. Bill Simmons used the leadership skills he gained in the Air Force and began his career with Yuba County as a group counselor in the juvenile probation system. He remained committed to improving the community as he worked to help build the One-Stop Center, a invaluable resource for the region that is the service provider for the Federal Workforce Investment Act's One-Stop Center for Business and Workforce Development. I had the pleasure of working with Bill when he served on the Yuba County board of supervisors from 1997 to 2005, and we continue to collaborate on issues affecting Beale Air Force Base through Mr. Simmons' role as a member of the Beale Military Liaison Committee. For the last three decades, Bill Simmons has been a forceful advocate for Beale AFB, by both working to improve the on-base facilities and promoting the many values and strengths of Beale AFB throughout California and the country. Bill Simmons has been a valuable local resource on education, military, and local issues affecting the entire Yuba-Sutter region, and I hope that he will remain active in his community beyond his retirement from the Yuba County Office of Education. I wish my friend the best as he embarks on this latest chapter of his distinguished career.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating the 2006-2007 National Hockey League champions, the Anaheim Ducks. The Anaheim Ducks demonstrated remarkable skill, teamwork, and determination in becoming the first California hockey team to win the prestigious Stanley Cup. The 2006 to 2007 season will be remembered as a truly landmark season for the Anaheim Ducks. During the course of the season, the Ducks played in the franchise's 1000th regular season game and recorded their 1000th point after a much-deserved 4 to 2 victory on March 11, 2007. The Ducks began their season in fine form as they set an NHL record by remaining undefeated in regulation play for the first 16 games of the season. The Ducks used a high-octane offense and a stout defense to achieve the first 100-point season and the first Pacific Division title in the franchise's history. Throughout the season, the Ducks were a model of hard work, dedication and consistency. Under the leadership of a dedicated management and coaching staff and with contributions from an outstanding roster of seasoned veterans and promising young players, the Ducks defeated the Minnesota Wild, the Vancouver Canucks, and the Detroit Red Wings in their usual spirited fashion en route to winning the Western Conference title. In the finals, the Ducks triumphed over the Ottawa Senators in a fiercely contested series that ensured the oldest and most famous trophy in all of North American professional sports, the Stanley Cup, will finally make its way to California for the first time. It is my pleasure to congratulate all the hard working members of the Ducks organization who worked tirelessly to bring so much joy and pride to the people of Orange County and to the State of California. Their successes are considerable, and I salute their accomplishments. As the Anaheim Ducks and their fans celebrate their first Stanley Cup victory, I congratulate them on a truly remarkable and memorable season and wish them more success in future seasons.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the lifetime of achievement and community leadership of Dr. Ron Bangasser. Dr. Bangasser passed away in Redlands on May 2, 2007. Born on January 25, 1950, in Freeport, IL, Ron Bangasser served the Inland Empire, his State and our Nation as a physician and advocate for health and wellness. After completing medical school at Chicago Medical School, Dr. Bangasser trained at San Bernardino County Medical Center in southern California, later served at St. Luke's Presbyterian Hospital in Milwaukee, and with the Navy Diving Medical Officer's Training School. Most recently, he was a physician with the Beaver Medical Group in Inland Southern California, where he served as medical director and director of external affairs. He also served as the chief of staff at nearby Redlands Community Hospital. In 1986, Dr. Bangasser founded the Paul F. Bangasser Wound Care Center at Redlands Community Hospital, named after and dedicated to his father. Dr. Bangasser was a tremendous advocate for patients and physicians, serving with a number of medical associations. For 28 years he provided key leadership for the San Bernardino County Medical Society, the California Medical Association, and the American Medical Association. He served as the speaker for the California Medical Association's house of delegates, and as chair for the California delegation to the American Medical Association. He also served as chair of the California Medical Association's finance committee, and vice chair of the California Medical Association's hospital medical staff section. Dr. Bangasser was also the recipient of numerous prestigious awards and honors. He received the Nicholas P. Krikes, M.D. Award for Outstanding Contributions to the San Bernardino County Medical Society, the American Medical Association Pride in the Professions Award, Riverside County Medical Association's Outstanding Contribution to Organized Medicine Award, the California Medical Association Young Physician's Joseph Boyle Young at Heart Award, the James C. MacLaggan, M.D. Political Action Award, and the Medical Board of California's Physician Humanitarian Award. While serving in each of his varied capacities, Dr. Bangasser also found the time to serve as the team physician for the San Bernardino Valley College football team for 22 years. San Bernardino Valley College honored him for these years of service and awarded him its Distinguished Service Award in 1999. Dr. Ron Bangasser will be remembered for all that he did to make his community and this country a better place to live. His was a life well lived.

Mrs. BOXER

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

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I have a couple questions for the Senator. I am very taken with his response to this amendment offered by my dear friend, one of the senior members of the Environment and Public Works Committee. I feel the Senator from New Jersey has hit on a number of points, and I wish to go over them. So if we reiterate, I think it is important. This Energy bill is supposed to be about reducing our dependence on fossil fuels, not increasing it. It seems to me that by turning to the same old, same old is ignoring the fact that our coastlines and our shores and the area out 50 miles where this will kick in are huge economic engines for our various States. So doesn't my friend believe, to restate his argument in a slightly different way, that we are going back to the same old solutions and ignoring what has happened in the last 20 years since we protected our coasts, that the economic engines of our coastal States have driven jobs and tourism and all the good things that come with a protected coast?

Mrs. BOXER. I have a further question. I would like to get the attention of Senator Bingaman, if I may, on this particular question because there are some people in this Chamber who think this particular amendment just deals with Virginia. Is it not so, if we look at page 2, it deals with any coastal State, and it is defined here to mean Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Delaware, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida? So we are not just dealing at all, as I understand it, with one State. It appears as if we are dealing with a number of States on the east coast, if not all the States that border on the coast.

Mrs. BOXER. So the amendment I have in front of me, 1566, is not the amendment that is before the Senate; is that correct? Parliamentary inquiry to the Presiding Officer: Is amendment No. 1566 not before the Senate, or has it been modified since it included all the other States?

Mrs. BOXER. Yes, I understand.

Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Senator. That is why I took the floor to ask some questions because my staff reading of it was not correct. I am glad it only applies to Virginia. However, my next question I was going to ask of my friend from New Jersey is this, because I think it is very important: We have one country from sea to shining sea. It seems to me my friend is pointing out, even with comments from other States, if, in fact, one particular Governor prevails, will there not be impacts most likely on other States?

Mrs. BOXER. I am not going to take very much time. I say to my good friend, I know he is just looking at his own State but, in essence, what he will do today, if he succeeds, is to destroy, I believe, a very important bipartisan environmental agreement that has been in place for decades now--I guess it is, what, 25 years or so, or getting close to that--where we have basically said as Republicans and Democrats: We have a God-given country, and one of our most precious resources is our coastlines, our shores; that because we have stood together, shoulder to shoulder, on this issue perhaps until this moment--and I hope not, but so be it, we are going to find out--we send a signal to our States that they should preserve and protect their coastlines and, indeed, to many in the private sector who have taken advantage of the fact that the beauty of our coastlines, the beauty of our oceans that attract millions of tourists, not just from around the United States to our coastlines but from throughout the world. I would hate to see us today, through the amendment process, without a pretty good hearing, take a step to cast asunder 25 years of bipartisanship and agreement by Presidents, both Republican and Democratic. Look, we know we want to become energy independent, and I think this underlying bill takes us very far down that road. Why turn to the same- old, same-old answers, when we have within our grasps the ability to get better fuel economy in our cars, the ability to get new kinds of renewable fuels, the ability to look forward, not backward, and not cast asunder the beauty we have inherited, I believe, from our Creator? I hope we can stand firm on this point because I am very fearful that if this idea is adopted, it is the beginning of the unravelling of something of which I have been so proud to be a part. I came to the Congress in 1982. I know my colleague has been here much longer than that. The fact is, since that time, we have worked in such a good way to preserve and protect the coasts. Again, I thank my colleague.

Mrs. BOXER. I will be happy to.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, is the Senator asking a question?

Mrs. BOXER. I will answer that one because it was so brilliantly posed. I got caught up in the Senator's poetic expression. I don't want to forget. I think Senator Menendez, and pretty soon we are going to hear from an eloquent opponent of Senator Warner's amendment, Senator Nelson from Florida, they are going to express how they feel being on the east coast. I am on the west coast. But, again, to me the beauty of this whole moratorium has been that we have said our coastlines and our ocean, that those are national treasures, east coast, west coast. And I think my colleague, Senator Menendez, has pointed out, it isn't as easy as all that. You are not going to build some kind of a sand dune around the drilling. You don't know what could happen. You don't know how far the problem could go. I know the Senator talks about the mitigation fund, but that just speaks to the point. So it isn't just about one State, it is about an entire coast, and it is about a precedent. Let me just say to my friend that the world has changed after 9/11. I voted to go to war against bin Laden--and we are still waiting--and, clearly, we learned very quickly over the years that we have to not be dependent on foreign oil, but we also understand we need a strong economy and a good economy, which means some other things, too. It means a beautiful coast, it means a healthy tourist industry, it means a healthy fishing industry. There are more jobs in tourism in my State than almost any other sector. So I think it is simplistic to say the only thing that drives us is oil. As I said, the beauty of the underlying bill is that we want to get past that and into the new solutions that are coming. We are going to have a vote, probably, on the CAFE standards, corporate average fuel economy, if Senator Feinstein's provision remains. It will be the equivalent of taking 5 million cars off the road. So there are new ways to think about the future, new ways to get off of foreign oil, and I don't think a good new way is to cast asunder years of bipartisan agreement and perhaps endanger the economies of many States along the Atlantic coast.

Mrs. BOXER. We don't have any offshore oil drilling very much anymore in California, but I am familiar with the big spill that occurred in Santa Barbara, which was so devastating that our State said never again, and our Governors, Republicans and Democrats, have said never again to drilling in State waters. Now, I can't give the Senator an answer to his question, but I have seen Exxon Valdez, and I have seen the great damage that has been done in my home State, as we study what happened in Santa Barbara. It is fortunate we don't have much offshore drilling in my State anymore, so I would be happy to have my friend put that in the Record.

Mrs. BOXER. I will wait in line. It is his time.

Mrs. BOXER. I would. I want to be very clear--very clear. I support drilling where it makes sense to drill. I oppose drilling where it doesn't make sense. I submit to my friend and to the Senate and to the American people that we made a very wise bipartisan decision a long time ago--and I think we should stick to it--that the fact is, it is important for the economy of the coastal States to keep and preserve the coast in the pristine nature in which it was given to us by God. That is my view, and I hope we will not support this amendment.