Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Maryland for her leadership in reaching out to the people of this country, asking them to send in their questions for Judge Roberts. As she noted, 25,000 individuals wrote in questions and we received a total of 40,000 questions. It shows the American people have a lot at stake. This is a serious time for our country, and a very important nomination. We certainly know that. Most Americans understand that the Court plays a huge role in defending our rights and freedoms, and now Judge Roberts has been nominated to be the Chief Justice of the United States. Although some will say it makes no difference, it makes a big difference. The Chief Justice runs the Court, sets its tone, assigns responsibility for writing its decisions, has a certain amount of cachet to speak for the Court, and so on. The Judiciary Committee began its hearings today on Judge Roberts. This is a vital part of the advice and consent role of the Senate. Before we vote, it is every Senator's duty to find out if Judge Roberts will uphold or undermine our fundamental freedoms, the freedoms that essentially define us as Americans. It is our duty to find out if Judge Roberts will fulfill the promise etched above the Court itself: Equal justice under the law--not justice only for the powerful, but equal justice for all. And when I say we have a duty, I am talking about our responsibility as Senators to act on behalf of we the American people. That is why the Democratic women, under Senator Mikulski's leadership, created the AskRoberts Web site. Americans submitted 40,000 questions about a broad range of issues, including privacy, reproductive health, civil rights, women's rights, and the environment. One individual posed this question to Judge Roberts: In your opinion, why would the White House refuse to turn over public records from your time as Deputy Solicitor General? What is there to hide? What is there to hide? It is a very important question. Senators on both sides of the aisle should be asking that question. Before we confirm Judge Roberts to a lifetime appointment as Chief Justice, we need to know everything possible about his views and philosophy. This isn't because it is interesting, because I am sure it would be interesting. Judge Roberts is a very bright and interesting man. But it is because every American's rights and freedoms hang in the balance. Judge Roberts has a very thin record on the bench. Therefore, his writings and statements, when he worked for the Reagan administration and the first Bush administration, become very important. We know that in his position working for Kenneth Starr, Mr. Roberts played a very important role. He was a top decisionmaker in the Solicitor General's Office. He appeared before the Supreme Court and, by his own admission, made the final determination of which cases to appeal in hundreds of circumstances. It is not as if we haven't gotten information like this before. We did so during the confirmation hearings for Judge Bork and Justice Rehnquist. That is why Democrats on the Judiciary Committee, under the leadership of Senator Leahy, and the Democratic leadership, under the leadership of Senator Reid, and the Democratic women, under the leadership of Senator Mikulski, and the entire Democratic caucus have written letter after letter to Attorney General Gonzales demanding these documents be released. We are talking about a very narrow request--only 16 cases--not a broad request for all records. What are these cases we are asking about? They include three about reproductive health, five about discrimination and civil rights, and three about the environment. These are the very issues Americans told us they wanted Roberts to answer questions about when they wrote to our Web site. In poll after poll, the American people are saying that Judge Roberts has to tell us what he believes, and we deserve to have this information. Everyone agrees that Judge Roberts is extremely qualified and very personable. But we need to know about his views and philosophy because, if confirmed, the cases he would decide will impact the daily lives of all Americans. I believe the American people want transparency and openness in this process. This should not be some hide-and-seek, catch-me-if-you-can deal. This is about someone who could sit on the Court for 30 years, or more. This is someone who is going to influence the lives of our grandchildren and perhaps even our great grandchildren. In addition to getting the information on these cases, Judge Roberts also must answer questions, and I hope he is going to do that. I know a couple of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle today seemed to be counseling him not to answer questions. One of them cited Judge Ginsburg, and said she drew the line by refusing to answer questions. Let me tell you what Judge Ginsburg said at her hearing when she was asked about Roe v. Wade and a woman's reproduction freedom. She said: It's a decision she must make for herself. And when Government controls that decision for her, she is being treated as less than a fully adult human. That is a quote from Ruth Bader Ginsburg. And it is certainly at odds with all that Senator Hatch and others are saying about how Ruth Bader Ginsburg didn't answer questions about key legal issues. No. 1, her writings on this and other topics were extensive. Then at the hearing, she said clearly that when the Government takes control--I am going to read it again: When Government controls that decision, a woman is being treated as less than a fully adult human. I want to know whether Judge Roberts agrees with that. He will have a chance to express that view and also his view about the role of Congress in protecting our families and communities. Take, for example, the violence against women. Part of that act, written by Joe Biden and Orrin Hatch--and I worked with Senator Biden for years on that--part of that law was thrown out. We want to know how Judge Roberts feels about whether we in the Senate can protect the women of our country, can protect the families of our country, can protect those who perhaps cannot speak for themselves. We need to know if Judge Roberts thinks the right to privacy is a fundamental right. We know he wrote about it as the so-called right of privacy. If I referred to your spouse as your ``so-called spouse,'' that would be an insult, wouldn't it? If I referred to your right to vote as your ``so-called right to vote,'' my constituency would be very upset with me because the right to vote is not a so-called right. So when you say something is a so-called right, it raises a lot of questions about how you feel about it. We also need to know why Judge Roberts argued before the Supreme Court and on national TV that our Federal courts and marshals had no role in stopping clinic violence when women were being threatened and intimidated at family planning clinics all over the country. It is time for Judge Roberts to say what he really thinks--on privacy, on gender discrimination, on civil rights, on the environment. On the appellate court, he wrote an opinion that raises questions about whether he would find the endangered species act constitutional. Does he think it is our right in the Congress to pass environmental laws that protect all Americans? As Senator Mikulski said, the role of the women Senators is very important. Women across America are counting on us to stand up, to ask the questions, and to get the answers. When we vote on this nomination, it must be an informed vote either yes because we believe he will protect our rights and freedoms or no because we have not been convinced. I thank the Chair. I yield back my time to Senator Mikulski.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, as I understand it, we have 5 minutes before Senator Gregg has the floor; is that correct?

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank Senator Murray because she has a way of putting things quite succinctly and clearly and I appreciate her coming to the floor. There is a very interesting editorial today in USA Today, and I want to quote from it. The first part says there is no question that the President has chosen someone with similar views to Judge Rehnquist. This is what they say: But, if the men are similar, the nation is different now from what it was when Rehnquist joined the Court 33 years ago, and that difference raises provocative questions for Roberts as Senate confirmation hearings begin today. This is how they say it has changed since Judge Rehnquist's hearings: In particular, the United States has become a far more tolerant society. In 1972, racial segregation was still being dismantled. Women, like African-Americans, were routinely deprived of equal opportunity. The notion that Americans possess a right to privacy, established by the landmark 1965 Supreme Court case that overturned state laws against birth control, was still taking root. This editorial goes on to ask if Roberts would make it difficult for Congress to extend those gains or even turn back the clock, concluding: His record leaves plenty of room for doubt. Now, this is USA Today. It is not considered a liberal newspaper. It is a pretty mainstream paper and it raises the issue of privacy, writing: In memos written when he was in the Reagan administration, Roberts disparaged the notion that there is a constitutional right to privacy that prevents the government from criminalizing contraception, abortion and gay sex. And then it talks about race: Roberts has belittled affirmative action as ``recruiting of inadequately prepared candidates'' and has argued for standards that would make it easier for school districts to evade desegregation orders. On women's rights, it is also troubling: Roberts ridiculed the concept that women are subject to workplace discrimination, and he argued for narrowing the government's ability to enforce the ban on gender discrimination in education. They close by saying: His record bears close scrutiny and his answers should go a long way toward determining whether he should be confirmed for a lifetime appointment as the Nation's most powerful jurist, deciding issues barely imaginable today and influencing the lives of generations to come. As I say, this editorial is quite mainstream. It raises legitimate concerns about Judge Roberts. It basically says to the Senate, it is your job to find out how he is going to rule on cases we cannot even envision at this time. I think that the committee is off to a good start. I received a briefing while I was on a plane today about the Senators' comments on both sides of the aisle. It clearly seems to be a confirmation that both sides are taking extremely seriously. I say to those friends and colleagues on the other side who are counseling Judge Roberts that he does not have to answer questions, that would be a big mistake. The American people in poll after poll are saying to us, we have a right to know. We want to have answers to very important questions that will shed light on if Judge Roberts is going to make sure this Congress and this Federal Government can protect them; that we can protect the environment; equal rights for women and for minorities; that we have the ability to make life better for the American people; and that we, in fact, will be able to respect the dignity of our people by making sure there is not a ``so-called'' right to privacy but a fundamental right to privacy that has been articulated by the Court and that we hope Judge Roberts will uphold. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, just over 5 short months ago, the Bush administration finalized a rule that weakens and delays required controls on emissions of mercury from coal- and oil-fired powerplants. We should overturn this rule today. This vote presents a clear choice: does the United States Senate support protecting the health of millions of children in our nation, or does it support protecting the profits of industries that emit mercury, which poisons our children and environment? The Bush administration supports the interests of polluting industries. The administration's rule saves the electric industry money, but at a severe cost to public health. The administration has-- once again--used the Federal Environmental Protection Agency to protect polluters. Mercury is a potent poison. Studies show that it may damage the human cardiovascular, endocrine, immune, and respiratory systems. It also harms the nervous systems of developing fetuses. Low levels of mercury exposure in utero can damage a fetus's brain and create long-term injuries, including learning disabilities, poor academic performance, and reduced capacity to do everyday activities like drawing and learning to speak. Up to 637,000 children are born each year having already been exposed to levels of mercury associated with brain damage. Just last week, on Sept. 8, 2005, the Center for Children's Health and the Environment, located at Mount Sinai Medical Center, found that more than 1,500 babies suffer from metal retardation due to mercury exposure in utero. In addition to the life-long personal impacts, the study found that the nation loses $2 billion annually from such injuries. Forty-five States warn people to reduce or avoid consumption of fish from waterbodies that contain mercury due to the risk associated with eating these fish. Mercury levels become concentrated in some fish, reaching more than one million times the level of mercury in the water. Where does this mercury come from? Powerplants are the single largest source of U.S. emissions of mercury, accounting for 44 percent of all such emissions. These powerplants emit 30 percent of the mercury that currently pollutes U.S. waters. Fish contaminated with mercury is the main source of exposure for people in our nation. The Clean Air Act requires reductions in mercury emissions that are crucial to protect public health. But, the Bush administration has decided to ignore the law. EPA's rule on coal- and oil-fired powerplants implements slower and weaker requirements than under the Clean Air Act. This ill-advised rule delays reductions for 10 years and allows higher emissions of mercury, compared to the Clean Air Act's requirements. EPA's projected reductions in emissions under the rule do not meet the reductions required by the Clean Air Act. And, in fact, this chart shows the reductions do not even meet what the rule itself calls for. Why did the EPA get it so wrong? Well, for starters, EPA used language from utility-industry lawyers-- almost word for word--to create the rule. On September 22, 2004, the Washington Posted reported that: For the third time, environmental advocates discovered passages in the Bush administration's proposal for regulating mercury pollution from power plants that mirror almost word for word portions of memos written by a law firm representing coal-fired power plants. . . . The EPA used nearly identical language in its rule, changing just eight words. In a separate section, the agency used the same italics [the law firm] used in their memo . . . Let me repeat the last part. The industry memo and the rule that EPA proposed even used the same italics. What else did EPA do wrong? The EPA's own inspector general found that senior EPA officials told career EPA staff to produce a rule that allowed 34 tons of annual mercury emissions, rather than to produce a rule that complied with the law. Let me quote from a 2005 EPA inspector general report that examined EPA's mercury rule: Evidence indicates that EPA senior management instructed EPA staff to develop a Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standard for mercury that would result in national emissions of 34 tons annually, instead of basing the standard on an unbiased determination of what the top performing units were achieving in practice. Again, this bears repeating: Senior EPA officials rigged the rulemaking to allow the power industry to emit a heavy metal that can poison children. But, it doesn't end there. Both EPA's inspector general and Congress's Government Accountability Office found that EPA failed to assess all of the public health benefits of reducing mercury. EPA ignored demands from its own Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee and other public health groups to asses such injuries. Let me quote from a January 4, 2005 letter that the Advisory Committee wrote to the EPA: While we are pleased to see that EPA is considering additional external analyses, we note that EPA has not conducted the analysis recommended by [the Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee] . . . Specially, we asked the Agency to develop `an integrated analysis with respect to whether emissions reductions under either of these proposals are the most child-protective, timely, and cost-effective,' using existing available data. . . . The [Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee] notes that none of the [EPA's] Principle questions for consideration [of the rule] addresses the importance of healthy child development in assessing a country's economic competitiveness. The Advisory Committee wrote four letters admonishing the EPA to conduct the needed analysis and increase protections for children. Did EPA listen? No. EPA unlawfully allowed industry to emit poison, and then turned a blind eye to the injuries suffered by the children who will be hurt most from this decision. In this rule, EPA chose not to require coal and oil-fired powerplants to make the same types of reductions that medical and municipal waste incinerators have made. These facilities, which emit mercury, have reduced their emissions by 90 percent using the maximum achievable control technologies. EPA got it wrong by cooking the books, using industry-supplied language, willfully ignoring the most severe public health impacts, and simply refusing to make powerful industries comply with the same rules as other entities. We must reject EPA's rule to delist these facilities as emitters of hazardous air pollutants. The Senate must join with the religious community, public health advocates, fishermen and hunters, environmental groups and more than a dozen states in opposing this rule. We must vote to protect public health, not the profits of the power industry. (At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise to recognize the opening of the University of California, Merced, the first new University of California campus in 40 years. The University of California, Merced is the 10th campus in the University of California system, widely renowned as one of the finest public university systems in the world. Merced, located in the heart of the San Joaquin Valley in Central California, was selected as the site of the new campus in 1995 after a thorough and competitive screening process that took 7 years and involved more than 80 different locations. The 1,000 students in the inaugural 2005 class are a shining example of the diversity that is a great strength of California. Students from Del Norte to San Diego, and from the Pacific Coast to the Sierra Nevada, make up the diverse student body population. A significant number of the students are the first in their families to attend college and come from underrepresented ethnic or racial minority groups in the Central Valley. The University of California, Merced will grow steadily in the coming years. Initially, the university will offer major degrees in nine different majors from three disciplines: engineering, natural sciences, and social sciences, arts and humanities. Graduate degrees in the three major disciplines will also be available. Total enrollment is expected to reach 5,000 in 5 years and reach 25,000 in 2035. The number of academic programs and degree offerings will increase accordingly as the university grows. The students, faculty, and staff of the inaugural UC Merced class deserve special praise for their vision as they take on the responsibility of building and expanding the 10th University of California to one that will some day be steep in tradition, history, and excellence. In due time, the students, faculty, and the staff of the first UC Merced class will be rightfully seen as pioneers to those who will follow in their path in the years and decades to come. The opening of the University of California, Merced is made possible by the tireless work and dedication of scores of committed public officials, hard-working professionals, and determined citizens. Every person who has lent a helping hand to the UC Merced campus can take great pride in knowing that their hard work has resulted in greater opportunities for future generations of California students. I congratulate the University of California, Merced on its opening, and wish its faculty, students and the community a bright future as they help make the Central Valley and California an even better place to live.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, we have all watched in horror as the Gulf Coast has been struck by what could be the worst natural disaster in U.S. history, leaving unimaginable suffering in its wake. It is difficult to put into words how heartbroken we are for the Americans affected by Hurricane Katrina. Brave souls everywhere are still searching for some family members, while trying to keep others alive and hopeful. We have seen the inspiring courage of the survivors and dedicated men and women working around the clock to help them. Thousands of people have lost their lives. Far more have lost life as they know it--their families, their homes, their communities, and their jobs. There has already been an increase in people filing for unemployment benefits due to Hurricane Katrina. And, the jobs that have been lost will be gone for a long time. To help people who have lost their jobs because of this crisis, I am introducing the ``Hurricane Katrina Reconstruction and Displaced Worker Assistance Act of 2005.'' This legislation would give priority in awarding Federal contracts for the rebuilding efforts to those companies where workers displaced by Hurricane Katrina comprise at least 25 percent of the workforce fulfilling the contract. This will help provide jobs to those who have been severely affected by the hurricane. We must show those who have suffered so much that their government will help them rebuild their lives. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing a bill to provide help to State and local first responders in purchasing interoperable communications systems--so that everyone can talk to one another during an emergency. This need has been glaringly apparent for over a decade now, but especially since the 2001 terrorist attacks. It was all the more evident in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. The 9/11 Commission described the inability to communicate as ``a critical element'' at the World Trade Center and at the crash sites, where multiple agencies and multiple jurisdictions responded in September 2001. And yet four years after that attack, our first responders still cannot talk to each other. Let me mention just one example from the areas affected by Hurricane Katrina. National Guard members have compared communications capabilities in New Orleans unfavorably with those in Iraq. Ground commanders for New Orleans have been functioning without the ability to track the location of some units reporting to them. This is unacceptable. Almost every community I visit in California--from big to small-- mentions the need for interoperable communications for first responders and the need for assistance from the federal government. California suffered from a lack of interoperable communications in the fall of 2003, when communities could not communicate with each other to convey what was happening with fires that were sweeping through the State, greatly complicating the response. We need to provide funding so that State and local first responders can purchase the technology that makes interoperability possible. We need to do our job at the national level and provide our first responders with the resources to protect our communities in the case of a terrorist attack, natural disaster, or other emergency. I have tried to get funds for interoperable communication systems as part of the Intelligence Bill, the Rail Security Bill, and the Homeland Security Appropriations Bill. The time to act is past. We need to get this done before the next disaster strikes, which is why I am reintroducing this bill. My bill would authorize $300 million for each of the next 5 years to help State and local agencies improve existing communications systems or purchase new systems. This funding would help local agencies purchase equipment for real-time interoperable communication between first responders. Guaranteeing that first responders will have the communications equipment necessary to respond to a future attack is exactly the kind of preemptive action we should have taken after 9/11 and should be taking now. A report on the needs of first responders by Warren Rudman and Richard Clarke found that fixing this problem would cost $6.8 billion. My bill does not fund this all, but we need to do something. This bill is an important step in fulfilling our federal responsibility to protect our citizens during emergencies. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I rise today with a heavy heart. We have all watched in horror as the Gulf Coast has been struck by what could be called the worst natural disaster in our history. Over the weekend, Chief Justice Rehnquist, who served our Court and country with such distinction for 33 years, and showed such bravery in the last months of his life, passed away. We have now lost nearly 2,000 young men and women in Iraq, and we still do not have, in my opinion, a credible plan, a mission, a timetable to achieve success and bring our troops home. Gas prices are putting horrible strains on most Americans. There is a tremendous amount of anxiety in America today. I feel it when I go home to California. We must confront it immediately in the Senate, in the House, and, yes, at the White House. With one party controlling the entire Government, there is pressure in some quarters to be silent and just let mistakes and misplaced priorities take their toll. Well, I do not agree with that mindset. I am going to say what I think. And even more important, I am going to do everything I can with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to help get our country moving in the right direction again. Lives hang in the balance in this disaster and, God forbid, in the next one. It is difficult to put into words how heartbroken we all are for Americans affected by Hurricane Katrina. Thousands of people have lost their lives. Far more have lost their homes, their jobs, their communities. Brave souls everywhere are still searching for some family members while trying to keep others alive and hopeful. I even heard a doctor on CNN talking about being forced to make the impossible choice of whom to save and whom to leave behind to die. Yes, the acts of bravery are being celebrated, as they should be-- neighbor helping neighbor, churches filling in for FEMA, local law enforcement putting their own hardships aside to work 24 hours a day helping others. But there are images, such as this one I show here, that leave us in tears. It shows a makeshift grave along the road--a makeshift grave. Somebody put a sheet over a body, and it looks like bricks are holding down the sheet. There is a cross on top, and it says: ``Here lies Vera. God help us.'' God help us, indeed. How can this have happened in America? Here we are, the most powerful and prosperous country in the world, and our people have to write notes on handmade graves to get attention. Well, words of compassion are not enough. We must show those who have suffered so much that their Government will help them find their missing relatives, and rebuild their lives, homes, and communities. The $10.5 billion we appropriated was an important start but just a start. We should not wait another day to give all the victims of Katrina immediate access to Medicaid or to exempt them from the recent bankruptcy law. We should not be cutting Medicaid now, and that is exactly what is in the budget bill the Republicans are bringing before us. We should not wait another day to provide temporary housing for all those displaced, including emergency vouchers. We also should use our military bases that are vacant to house people until they are on their feet again. We should not wait another day to make sure that Halliburton, or any other company receiving Federal contracts, employs some of the estimated 500,000 to 1 million people who are now jobless. Put them to work rebuilding their own communities. You are giving these companies Federal contracts. Let them step to the plate and do their share. There are two similarities that I see between Iraq and this hurricane. The administration did not have a plan for either, and Halliburton will end up making billions of dollars for both. Hurricane Katrina has shown a spotlight on the best and the worst of America. We have seen the inspiring courage of the survivors and the dedicated men and women working around the clock to help them. We have also seen those who would loot, and take advantage of this tragic situation. We have seen the heroics of the press, which put a spotlight on the full extent of the tragedy. We have also seen the deadly chasm between the haves and the have- nots, with the poorest among us left behind, literally and figuratively, to weather the storm. And, yes, we have seen, in my opinion, an unacceptable response from our Federal Government. The President himself said that, and then he backed away. I know the President has said he will launch an investigation, but it is not sufficient for the President to investigate his own administration. Congress must fulfill its oversight responsibility. I thank Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman for pledging to hold hearings on the Government's response to this tragedy. Today, an AP wire story that was just handed to me says, ``The top U.S. disaster official''--that is Michael Brown--``waited hours after Hurricane Katrina struck the Gulf Coast before he proposed to his boss,'' that is Michael Chertoff, ``sending at least 1,000 Homeland Security workers into the region to support rescuers, internal documents show.'' Quoting further the AP wire story: The same day Brown wrote Chertoff, Brown also urged local fire and rescue departments outside Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi not to send trucks or emergency workers into disaster areas without an explicit request for help from state or local governments. We must fulfill our oversight responsibility. I agree with Senator Clinton that we should also create an independent Katrina commission. Hurricane Katrina has raised alarming questions about our Nation's ability to prepare for and respond to disasters. Last Thursday, the President told Diane Sawyer that we did anticipate a serious storm, and I quote him: I don't think anyone anticipated the breach of the levees. Well, that is unbelievable. All you had to do was look at FEMA's own report in 2001, which listed the three most likely catastrophic disasters our country could face. What were they? A massive earthquake in California, a terrorist attack on New York City, and a major hurricane hitting New Orleans. All you had to do was look at the Houston Chronicle, which predicted this. The New Orleans Times-Picayune predicted this. The National Geographic predicted this. There was a 5- day simulation in July of 2004 to specifically address a disastrous hurricane in New Orleans. The LA Times reported that in late May the Army Corps of Engineers in the New Orleans district formally notified Washington that hurricane storm surges could knock out two of the big pumping stations that keep the city dry. On the day before the tragedy struck, an AP wire story said: Experts expect Katrina to turn New Orleans into Atlantis, leaving up to 1 million homeless. They did not think the levees would break? And what about the budgets? Despite repeated requests from New Orleans for more Federal money to protect the city, the press reported that funding for Corps of Engineers projects in the New Orleans area fell by 44 percent between 2001 and 2005. This is unacceptable. Michael Brown should go. He is a nice man. But I agree with Senator Mikulski, he should go. He should go because he does not even have the experience to do this job. He was the head of an Arabian horsemen's association. That is not training to step into a disaster the size of the one we have seen. Now, in California, we know how important FEMA is during a disaster. After the Northridge Earthquake, James Lee Witt, the head of FEMA, was out there. We counted on him, and Lord knows how many lives he saved. He knew what he was doing. We built up FEMA during that time, all of us working together. It has now been turned into a shadow of its former self. I also agree we ought to make FEMA again an independent agency. Senator Byrd tried to do that. He offered an amendment that said: Let's wait before we put FEMA under Homeland Security. Twenty-eight of us voted for that. It did not pass. I warned at that time very clearly that this was making me extremely nervous. My quote was: Putting the Federal Emergency Management Administration, [FEMA] lock, stock, and barrel, into this new Department I just think is going to be a real problem for us. . . . I am very worried about accountability. Now, I do not say this to imply that I knew what was going to happen. I did not. But I do have some common sense, and I know you need one person in charge who has the ability, yes, to move mountains. Yesterday, we had a briefing on this up in room 407. We had the whole Cabinet there. I listened to a lot of good people. I would have preferred one person I could hold accountable. There are many more things I am going to do. But I have to say this: For years we tried to get interoperable communications funding--for years. I had a bill. Senator Stabenow had a bill. It got through the Senate. It got taken out by the House. We still do not have emergency workers able to talk to one another. So we need to move fast. We need to move fast before the next disaster strikes. Now, we all pray in the Senate we will not have another disaster like this, but we must plan in case we do. That is our job. That is our work. We must set aside a lot of other things we are going to do around here to get this right because we know we are living under the threat of a terrorist attack that could occur in any city in this country. And this is a sad case for us and not one that should be emulated. We all have to move forward. And, yes, the people who did not do the right thing should not be heading these agencies. In my state of California, we know how it feels to lose your bearings, your home, and your sense of security. I saw it so many times in my congressional career, in my Senate career. Earthquakes, fires, floods, mud slides; you name it, we have had it. You need strength at the Federal Government level when these things happen. Look at the city of New Orleans, what they tried to do with the police officers. Two police officers committed suicide. They had nothing, and they were trying to secure a city for days. Well, it is hard to look at this, but we have to look at it. We have to do it with an independent commission. We have to make sure people who are counting on us get their lives back. And we can do it. This is America. But we need to hold people accountable. We need to be credible with our response. The job is a tough one, but we need to do it, and we need to do it soon. We owe nothing less to the people we represent. Madam President, thank you.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to Laura Esguerra Adams, a member of my staff who died last week after a valiant struggle against cancer. I want the Senate and the American people to know about this extraordinary young woman who served us all so well. Laura was my Web designer, in charge of my Senate Web site. Over the past several years, she transformed ``boxer.senate.gov'' from a simple, nondescript Web page to a modern, cutting-edge site that has won awards for its clean look, comprehensive content, and accessibility. Today thousands of Californians visit this site every week to get up- to-date information, express their opinions, and obtain help from my office and Government agencies. Laura's many additions to the site included video updates from California and the Senate floor, contests for kids on Earth Day and the Fourth of July, and dozens of links to other sites providing news, information, and assistance. Laura was not only a tremendous asset to my staff; she was also a joy to work with. She was smart, funny, and most of all big hearted. She was both tech wise and user friendly, always willing to share her knowledge and expertise. In our Los Angeles office, she organized great potluck lunches where she cooked well, ate prodigiously, and shared her eclectic taste in music of all kinds--good, bad, and strange. A truly urban Angeleno, Laura lived in a downtown LA loft and recently led her new husband James and their wedding party on a candlelight procession through the center city. Laura was a highly skilled and devoted public servant who believed that technology can and should add to our understanding of Government and give more people the opportunity to participate in our democracy. I deeply appreciate her service to the Senate and the people of California. I know Members will join me in honoring the memory of Laura Esguerra Adams and sending our thoughts and prayers to her husband, family, and many dear friends.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize a wonderful Californian, Alan Bergman, in honor of his 80th birthday. Few in the world today have brought so much pleasure, joy, and insight to so many as have Alan and his wife Marilyn. Alan Bergman was born on September 11, 1925, in Brooklyn, NY. He had an ear for music at a young age--at age 10, he knew he wanted to be a songwriter. After studying at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the University of California at Los Angeles, Alan moved to Philadelphia. There, he worked as a director for children's television shows, and moonlighted as a songwriter. He soon moved back to Los Angeles at the urging of his mentor, Johnny Mercer, to work full time on his budding songwriting career. In Los Angeles, Alan met Marilyn Keith. Alan and Marilyn hit it off right away, and Alan knew that in Marilyn he had a friend and a musical partner. Alan also knew that he wanted to spend the rest of his life with this remarkable woman. And in 1958, Alan and Marilyn were married. With Marilyn's musical background, she and Alan were a perfect match. They began to write lyrics together. It soon became evident that Alan and Marilyn Bergman were a powerful team, working on lyrics for television shows and movies. In 1968, their efforts won them their first Oscar for ``The Windmills of Your Mind,'' the theme song from the ``Thomas Crown Affair.'' There would be more recognition to come for the Bergmans, the only husband-and-wife team of lyricists. In 1968, Alan and Marilyn also won a Golden Globe Award for ``The Windmills of Your Mind.'' In 1973, Alan and Marilyn won two Emmys, an Oscar, a Grammy, and a Golden Globe Award for ``The Way We Were.'' In 1984, they won another Oscar for the score for ``Yentl,'' and won Emmys for ``Sybil,'' ``Queen of the Stardust Ballroom,'' ``Ordinary Miracles'' and ``A Ticket to Dream.'' And these are just a few of Alan and Marilyn's many awards. In addition to these awards, Alan and Marilyn have received many accolades. Among others, they have been inducted into the Songwriters Hall of Fame, and have received the National Academy of Songwriters Lifetime Achievement Award, the Spanish Cultural Medal of Honor, and the Governors Award from the National Association of Recording Arts and Sciences. As president of the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers, Marilyn has worked with many in Congress, in a bipartisan way, to protect intellectual property rights. Recently, Alan unveiled another one of his many talents--in addition to being a world-renowned songwriter, Alan is also a gifted singer. He has performed shows across the country, from the Algonquin Hotel in New York to the Jazz Bakery in Los Angeles, showcasing the songs that he has written with Marilyn. When I met Alan and Marilyn in 1990, I knew that my life as a political leader would take on a new dimension. I was to learn that as a human being I had been enriched beyond measure. Alan and Marilyn's musical achievements throughout their lifetimes show how exceedingly talented and gifted they are. Their success is a result of their hard work and dedication. It is no wonder that they are one of the most respected songwriting teams in music today. I believe it is appropriate that Alan be recognized in the Congressional Record today not only on the occasion of his 80th birthday, but, along with Marilyn, for enriching the lives of so many Americans for so many years.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, even though we have all been scattered across the country during this past week as the Senate has been in recess, we have all witnessed through television the devastating scenes from Louisiana and Mississippi. My heart goes out to all of those who have been affected by Hurricane Katrina--those who have lost friends and family members; those who have lost homes; those whose lives have been completely upended. My thoughts and my prayers are with them all. Having represented California in the Senate for the past 12\1/2\ years, I have been through my share of disasters--of earthquakes, floods, mudslides, and fires. I know a little of what they are going through right now in the South. But no matter how many disasters I have witnessed first hand in California, I must admit, these are some of the most disturbing and catastrophic scenes I have ever seen. And here we are, several days after the hurricane struck, and it does not appear to be getting much better. Tens of thousands of people remained stranded and trapped--there is a critical lack of food and water--and people are dying. It is truly a desperate situation. So I am pleased to support this legislation to provide emergency funding to help the relief efforts. I doubt it will be enough, and I suspect we will need to do more. I trust that the action we are taking tonight will be just the first step--and will serve to underscore our desire to take care of the people of the Gulf States. The bill (H.R. 3645) was read the third time and passed.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, this bill is part of the special interest agenda being pushed by the NRA and the Republican leader. First they managed to stall the reauthorization of the assault weapon bank, even though the bill saved lives and kept out police officers safer. Now they are looking to grant sweeping protections to gun manufacturers and dealers who recklessly sell guns that cause thousands of deaths in this country each year. Contrary to what supporters of this bill are saying, this is not ``tort reform'' and this will not, as the White House said, ``help curb the growing problem of frivolous lawsuits.'' They call this bill the ``Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.'' They give it a nice name to make it sound like they are protecting trade. What if we called it the ``Shield Gun Makers From Lawsuits When Their Defective Gun Blows Your Child's Arm Off Act?'' Or, ``You're Off the Hook if You Sell Guns to Criminals and They Use Those Guns to Murder People Act?'' I guess those names just don't have the same ring to them. How about a little truth in advertising here--``Protect the Unlawful Commerce in Arms Act?'' I don't think so. Make no mistake, this bill is an erosion of victims' rights. This bill puts the gun industry ahead of the rights of individuals. Ahead of the Dix family. These are real people, real victims. The doors of the courthouse would have been shut to the family of Kenzo Dix, who ultimately settled with Beretta. This case was brought by the parents of Kenzo, a 15-year-old boy who was unintentionally shot and killed by a young friend with a defectively designed gun. Kenzo's friend Michael thought that he had unloaded his father's gun when he replaced the loaded magazine with an empty one. But the design of the gun failed to reveal the hidden bullet in the chamber, and this bullet killed Kenzo. Beretta could have easily designed the gun with inexpensive, well- known features that would have prevented Kenzo's death. They could have included an internal lock to prevent Michael from firing the gun, or an effective loaded-chamber indicator to alert Michael that the gun was loaded. Although Beretta was long aware of the need for these features, it refused to include them. Imported guns are subject to safety standards. But because domestic firearms are currently exempt from Federal consumer product safety oversight, the Consumer Product Safety Commission cannot compel gunmakers to include needed safety devices, as it routinely does with manufacturers of other products. So court cases like Dix v. Beretta are the only way we can ensure gunmakers do the right thing. It is the only way. We know that just 1 percent of the gun dealers supply 57 percent of the guns used in crimes. None of us can ever forget the terror and horror wrought by the DC-area snipers. And no one here can forget the role that Bull's Eye Shooter Supply of Tacoma, W.A, played in that terror. Bull's Eye says it ``lost'' the assault rifle used by the DC area snipers to murder 12 people. In just 3 years, Bull's Eye says it managed to ``lose'' 237 other guns as well. This is unbelievable. How did Bull's Eye ``lose'' all of those weapons? Clearly, the victims of Bull's Eye's gross negligence should have their day in court. In all it supplied guns traced to at least 52 crimes. But if the Senate caves to the gun lobby and passes this bill, dealers like Bull's Eye will be able to continue business as usual. This bill eliminates any real incentives for the gun industry to act more responsibly. This can only result in more victims in the future like those killed by the DC area snipers. This bill would bar cases including those brought by two New Jersey police officers, David Lemongello and Ken McGuire. They won a settlement from a pawn shop dealer who negligently sold twelve guns to a straw purchaser. How does a straw purchaser work? This is one way: A criminal wants to buy several guns for his gang. He knows he can not buy it because he is a felon. So he gets his girlfriend who does not have a criminal record to go to the sales counter with him, and she buys the guns for him. The gun dealer knows something is wrong here, this young woman wanting to buy all these guns, but the dealer wants the money and goes ahead and sells the guns to the girl. As a result of the police officers' suit, the West Virginia dealer changed its policies and now no longer engages in large-volume gun sales. Two other dealers in the same town also changed their policies. So the lawsuit brought about responsible behavior and our people are safer. I want my colleagues to consider the outcome of this lawsuit. For two brave police officers, justice was done. The dealer was held accountable for its reckless sale to a straw purchaser, and now the dealer operates more responsibly. And no one declared bankruptcy. This outcome was only possible because this special interest immunity bill had not yet become law. Police and big city mayors oppose the bill before us. They say it will just make battling illegal guns more difficult and make police officers' lives more dangerous, more deadly. They oppose immunizing gun manufacturers against civil liability because it would remove much of their legal incentive to behave responsibly. It would just encourage bad manufacturers to remain bad, while giving good manufacturers the green light to become lax. In my home state of California, we used to have a law that shielded gunmakers from liability, but the governor signed legislation repealing that law 2 years ago. Today in California, gun manufacturers like everyone else are responsible for making their products as safe as they can be. We are safer today in California, but that margin of safety will disappear if Congress gives the gun industry special legal immunity. In 1999, the late Senator John Chafee and I introduced the Firearms Rights, Responsibilities, and Remedies Act, which would have preserved the right of local governments and individuals to hold the gun industry accountable for avoidable gun violence. Congress not only failed to pass our bill; the House and now many of my colleagues have charged off in the opposite direction to protect gunmakers while putting the rest of us at greater risk. Who do we represent here? I ask my colleagues that we think about the 30,000 Americans killed every year by guns, and 12,000 children wounded each year by guns. I urge my colleagues to listen to the police officers walking the beat, to Lynn Dix, the mother of Kenzo Dix, and to all the other mothers who have lost their children to gun violence, and to victims of the DC snipers' rampage. Listen to them and vote against this extremist bill.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I will vote against this energy bill because it does not do enough to reduce our dependence on foreign oil through the promotion of alternative forms of energy or by encouraging energy efficiency. I was very disappointed that the conference committee eliminated the Senate's renewable portfolio standard, under which utilities would have provided 10 percent of their total sales from renewable resources by 2020. In addition, the conference also eliminated the Senate provision that called on the President to find ways to reduce oil use by 1 million barrels per day by 2025, as well as the provision promoting hybrids for use in Federal, State, and other vehicle fleets. I am also very concerned about an authorization for an inventory of energy resources in America's Outer Continental Shelf, which is damaging in itself and may lead to future oil and gas development in some coastal areas. Overall, this bill is very imbalanced. The bill provides $5.7 billion in tax incentives over 10 years for the fossil fuel industry and $1.5 billion in subsidies and tax breaks for the nuclear industry. Compare this to tax incentives for renewable electricity, alternative vehicles and fuels, energy efficiency, and energy conservation, which were cut from $11.4 billion in the Senate bill to $5.8 billion in the final bill. With all of these bad provisions, I am pleased that a few good provisions survived, such as my amendment calling on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to conclude action on energy crisis refunds by the end of the year or report to Congress explaining what it has done and specifying a timetable for the rest of their process I am also pleased that this energy bill will exempt California from the proposed new ethanol mandate during the summer months, when ethanol usage in gasoline can increase air pollution, and that it included my original proposal to encourage the production of ethanol from agricultural waste. Republicans removed many provisions from the Senate bill that would have put us on a more energy-efficient path, and unfortunately we were left with a bill that does not offer the sound and innovative policies we need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, protect the environment, and improve our energy and fuel efficiency.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today we are passing a significant bill for the people of this country. It will create hundreds of thousands of jobs. It will reduce congestion on our highways. It will move goods more efficiently. And it will improve local transit systems. I was pleased to have been a part of putting this bill together as a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee and as a conferee on this legislation. This is a good bill for the State of California. In total, California will receive $21.6 billion in highway and transit funding over the next 5 years. That is an average of $1.175 billion more per year for California than the last highway bill in 1998. And it will create an estimated 800,000 jobs in my State. When I arrived in the Senate in 1993, California was getting about 83 cents on the dollar in highway funds. I am pleased to report that with this bill California's rate of return will reach 92 percent. Not what it should be--but a significant improvement. This bill also includes over $1 billion in special projects for California, including over $130 million for the I-405 HOV lanes in the Los Angeles area and $58 million for the Golden Gate bridge seismic retrofit--an extremely important project in helping to preserve one of American's most notable landmarks. Let me tell you why increased funding is so crucial for California. According to the Texas Transportation Institute, Los Angeles and the San Francisco-Oakland region are ranked No. 1 and 2 for the worst roadway congestion in this country. California has two more cities in the top five, with San Jose ranked fourth and San Diego ranked fifth. The inland empire of San Bernardino and Riverside Counties is ranked 12th and Sacramento is ranked 13th. What does this congestion translate to? Delays--in the Los Angeles area, 136 hours per year, on average per driver, in peak hours. Drivers in the San Francisco and Oakland area experience 92 hours of delays, and San Jose drivers endure 74 hours of delays. Inland empire drivers are delayed 64 hours, and San Diego drivers are delayed 51 hours a year. This is time people could spend with their families, reading a book, or any number of other things; instead, they are stuck in traffic. Congestion will not get better over time. California's population is expected to increase from 35 million people today to 50 million people by 2020. We need to make significant improvements in our transportation system. This bill will help fund the roads that will help ease congestion. And it will also fund transit systems that will enable more people to get off the roads and onto buses, trains, and subways. Transit ridership is up growing rapidly in California. The number of miles traveled annually by transit passengers grew by 20 percent between 1997 and 2001. The number of annual passenger trips was up 14 percent. In the San Francisco Bay Bridge corridor, 38 percent of all trips are on transit. And 30 percent of all trips into central Los Angeles are on transit. This is why I am pleased that California will receive $4.6 billion in guaranteed transit funding over the next 5 years. To mention a few specific examples of projects in California, this bill funds the Metro Gold Line eastside extension in Los Angeles, the Mission Valley east extension in San Diego, the Muni Third Street light rail in San Francisco, and the South Corridor light rail extension in Sacramento. Another issue that I spent a lot of time working on involves grade crossings. Over 40 percent of all the Nation's imported goods come through California ports. The majority enter through the ports of LA and Long Beach. Many of the goods are then put on trams, leave Los Angeles, and travel through Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. This causes terrible local congestion. To help that problem, this bill funds over $150 million for the Alameda corridor east for grade separations. In addition to congestion, grade crossings create significant safety problems. This bill includes my provision for a study of grade crossing safety. The study would direct the Secretary of Transportation, in consultation with State and local government officials, to conduct a study of the impact of grade crossings both on accidents and on the ability of emergency responders to perform public safety and security duties. This would include the ability of police, fire, ambulances, and other emergency vehicles to cross the railroad tracks during emergencies. Finally, this legislation recognizes that we can both improve our transportation system and improve our environment at the same time. For example, I worked to ensure that fuel-efficient hybrid cars can be allowed on HOV lanes. This will provide incentives for people to purchase fuel-efficient vehicles, and will allow the State of California to implement a law passed last year. In addition, this bill promotes bike and pedestrian paths. Funding is provided for the Virginia Corridor Rails to Trails plan, which will convert a Union Pacific railroad right of way into a bicycle and pedestrian trail in Modesto. Also, Marin County will receive $25 million to develop a network of bike and pedestrian paths. This bill has been several years in the making. It has been the subject of intense--and sometimes tough--negotiations. But in the end, I am glad I had the opportunity to help craft a bill that will do so much to improve the lives of Californians, create so many jobs in California, and make such significant improvements to our transportation system. I encourage all of my colleagues to support the bill.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I rise to pay tribute to 32 young Americans who have been killed in Iraq since April 23. This brings to 434 the number of soldiers who were either from California or based in California who have been killed while serving our country in Iraq. This represents 24 percent of all U.S. deaths in Iraq. SGT Anthony J. Davis, age 22, died April 23 in Mosul when a vehicle- borne improvised explosive device detonated near his Stryker military vehicle. He was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 24th Infantry Regiment, 1st Brigade, 25th Infantry Division, Fort Lewis, WA. He was from Long Beach, CA. CPL Kevin W. Prince, age 22, died April 23 in Baghdad of injuries sustained when an improvised explosive device detonated near his humvee. He was assigned to the 2nd Squadron, 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment, Fort Irwin, CA. SGT Timothy C. Kiser, age 37, died April 28 in Riyhad, Iraq when an improvised explosive device detonated near his patrol. He was assigned to the Army National Guard's 340th Forward Support Battalion, 40th Infantry Division, Red Bluff, CA. He was from Tehama, CA. CPT Stephen W. Frank, age 29, died April 29 in Diyarah, Iraq when a vehicle-borne improvised explosive device detonated as he was conducting a traffic control point inspection. He was assigned to 2nd Squadron, 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment, Fort Irwin, CA. CPT Ralph J. Harting III, age 28, died April 29 in Diyarah, Iraq when a vehicle-borne improvised explosive device detonated as he was conducting a traffic control point inspection. He was assigned to 2nd Squadron, 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment, Fort Irwin, CA. SSG Juan De Dios Garcia-Arana, age 27, died April 30 in Khaladiyah, Iraq when his Bradley Fighting Vehicle was attacked by enemy forces using small arms fire. He was assigned to the 5th Battalion, 5th Air Defense Artillery Regiment, 2nd Infantry Division, Camp Hovey, Korea. He was from Los Angeles, CA. MAJ John C. Spahr, age 42, died May 2 from injuries received when the F/A-18 Hornet aircraft he was piloting apparently crashed in Iraq. He was assigned to Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 323, Marine Aircraft Group 11, 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing, Marine Corps Air Station Miramar, CA. His unit was embarked aboard the U.S.S. Carl Vinson. CPT Kelly C. Hinz, age 30, died May 2 from injuries received when the F/A-18 Hornet aircraft he was piloting crashed in Iraq while flying in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. He was assigned to Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 323, Marine Aircraft Group 11, 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing, Marine Corps Air Station Miramar, CA. His unit was embarked aboard the U.S.S. Carl Vinson. SGT Stephen P. Saxton, age 24, died May 3 in Baghdad when his unit was conducting a route security mission and an improvised explosive device detonated near his humvee. He was assigned to the Army's 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, Fort Carson, CO. He was from Temecula, CA. LCPL John T. Schmidt III, age 21, died May 11 from wounds received as a result of an explosion while conducting combat operations against enemy forces in Al Anbar Province on January 30. He was assigned to 3rd Battalion, 8th Marine Regiment, 2nd Marine Division, Camp Lejeune, NC. During Operation Iraqi Freedom, his unit was attached to the 1st Marine Division, Camp Pendleton, CA. SGT John M. Smith, age 22, died May 12 in Iskandariyah, Iraq from injuries sustained when an improvised explosive device detonated near his vehicle. He was assigned to the Army's 2nd Squadron, 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment, Fort Irwin, CA. SFC Randy D. Collins, age 36, died May 24 at the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland of injuries sustained in Mosul on May 4 during a mortar attack. He was assigned to the Army's 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment, Fort Irwin, CA. He was from Long Beach, CA. MAJ Ricardo A. Crocker, age 39, died May 26 from a rocket propelled grenade explosion while conducting combat operations in Hadithah, Iraq. He was assigned to the Marine Corps Reserve's 3rd Civil Affairs Group, Camp Lejeune, NC. During Operation Iraqi Freedom, his unit was attached to II Marine Expeditionary Force. He was from Mission Viejo, CA. SGT Mark A. Maida, age 22, died May 27 in Baghdad of injuries sustained in Diyarah, Iraq on May 26 when an improvised explosive device detonated near his humvee. He was assigned to the Army's 2nd Squadron, 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment, Fort Irwin, CA. 1st Sgt Michael S. Barnhill, age 39, died May 28 after his vehicle stuck an improvised explosive device near Haqlaniyah, Iraq. He was assigned to the Marine Corps Reserve's 6th Engineer Support Battalion, 4th Force Service Support Group, Eugene, OR. During Operation Iraqi Freedom, his unit was attached to II Marine Expeditionary Force. He was from Folsom, CA. CPL Jeffrey B. Starr, age 22, died May 30 from small-arms fire while conducting combat operations against enemy forces near Ar Ramadi, Iraq. He was assigned to 1st Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, Camp Pendleton, CA. During Operation Iraqi Freedom, his unit was attached to II Marine Expeditionary Force. CPT Derek Argel, age 28, died May 30 in the crash of an Iraqi air force aircraft during a training mission in eastern Diyala province. He was assigned to the 23rd Special Tactics Squadron, Hurlburt Field, FL. He was from Lompoc, CA. CPL Antonio Mendoza, age 21, died June 3 at Brook Army Medical Center, San Antonio, TX from wounds received as a result of an explosion while conducting combat operations against enemy forces in Ar Ramadi, Iraq on February 22. At the time of his injury, he was assigned to 5th Battalion, 11th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, Camp Pendleton, CA. He was from Santa Ana, CA. LCPL Daniel Chavez, age 20, died June 9 as a result of explosion while conducting combat operations with the 2nd Marine Division in Haqlaniyah, Iraq. He was assigned to 1st Tank Battalion, 1st Marine Division, Camp Pendleton, CA. LCpl Jonathan R. Flores, age 18, died June 15 when his vehicle hit an improvised explosive device while conducting combat operations near Ar Ramadi, Iraq. He was assigned to 1st Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, Camp Pendleton, CA. During Operation Iraqi Freedom, his unit was operating with the 2nd Infantry Division of the U.S. Army, which was attached to 2nd Marine Division. LCpl Jesse Jaime, age 22, died June 15 when his vehicle hit an improvised explosive device while conducting combat operations near Ar Ramadi, Iraq. He was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, Camp Pendleton, CA. During Operation Iraqi Freedom, his unit was operating with the 2nd Infantry Division of the U.S. Army, which was attached to 2nd Marine Division. LCpl Tyler S. Trovillion, age 23, died June 15 when his vehicle hit an improvised explosive device while conducting combat operations near Ar Ramadi, Iraq. He was assigned to 1st Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, Camp Pendleton, CA. During Operation Iraqi Freedom, his unit was operating with the 2nd Infantry Division of the U.S. Army, which was attached to 2nd Marine Division. LCpl Dion M. Whitley, age 21, died June 15 when his vehicle hit an improvised explosive device while conducting combat operations near Ar Ramadi, Iraq. He was assigned to 1st Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, Camp Pendleton, CA. During Operation Iraqi Freedom, his unit was operating with the 2nd Infantry Division of the U.S. Army, which was attached to 2nd Marine Division. He was from Los Angeles, CA. LCpl Chad B. Maynard, age 19, died June 15 when his vehicle hit an improvised explosive device while conducting combat operations near Ar Ramadi, Iraq. He was assigned to 1st Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, Camp Pendleton, CA. During Operation Iraqi Freedom, his unit was operating with the 2nd Infantry Division of the U.S. Army, which was attached to 2nd Marine Division. Petty Officer 2nd Class Cesar O. Baez, age 37, died June 15 as a result of enemy small arms fire while conducting combat operations in al-Anbar Province. He was a Hospital Corpsman assigned to 2nd Marine Division, II Marine Expeditionary Force. He was from Pomona, CA. LCpl Erik R. Heldt, age 26, died June 16 when his vehicle hit an improvised explosive device while conducting combat operations near Ar Ramadi, Iraq. He was assigned to 1st Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, Camp Pendleton, CA. During Operation Iraqi Freedom, his unit was attached to 2nd Marine Division. CPT John W. Maloney, age 36, died June 16 when his vehicle hit an improvised explosive device while conducting combat operations near Ar Ramadi, Iraq. He was assigned to 1st Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, Camp Pendleton, CA. During Operation Iraqi Freedom, his unit was attached to 2nd Marine Division. SGT Arnold Duplantier II, age 26, died June 22 in Baghdad where he was providing cordon security, and was attacked by enemy forces using small arms fire. He was assigned to the Army National Guard's 1st Battalion, 184th Infantry Regiment, Auburn, CA. He was from Sacramento, CA PFC Veashna Muy, age 20, died June 23 while traveling in a convoy that was attacked by a suicide, vehicle-borne, improvised explosive device in Fallujah. He was assigned to the 8th Marine Regiment, 2nd Marine Division, Camp Lejeune, NC. He was from Los Angeles, CA. Petty Officer 1st Class Regina R. Clark, age 43, died June 23 in a convoy that was attacked by a vehicle-borne improvised explosive device in Fallujah. She was a culinary specialist deployed with Naval Construction Regiment Detachment 30, Port Hueneme, CA and was temporarily assigned to II Marine Expeditionary Force. LCpl Carlos Pineda, age 23, died June 24 as a result of wounds sustained from enemy small-arms fire while conducting combat operations in Fallujah. He was assigned to the 8th Marine Regiment, 2nd Marine Division, Camp Lejeune, NC. He was from Los Angeles, CA. SSG Jorge L. Pena-Romero, age 29, died July 16 in Baghdad when an improvised explosive device detonated near his Humvee while his unit was conducting a mounted patrol. He was assigned to the 1st Squadron, 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment, Fort Irwin, CA. He was from Fallbrook, CA. Four hundred thirty-four soldiers who were either from California or based in California have been killed while serving our country in Iraq. I pray for these young Americans and their families. I would also like to pay tribute to the five soldiers from or based in California who have died while serving our country in Operation Enduring Freedom since April 26. SFC Allen C. Johnson, age 31, died April 26 in Khanaqin, Afghanistan, of injuries sustained when enemy forces using small arms fire attacked his patrol. He was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 7th Special Forces Group, Fort Bragg, NC. He was from Los Molinos, CA. SFC Victor H. Cervantes, age 27, died June 10 in Orgun-e, Afghanistan, when he came under small arms fire while on patrol. He was assigned to the Army's 1st Battalion, 7th Special Forces Group (Airborne), Fort Bragg, NC. He was from Stockton, CA. MAJ Duane W. Dively, age 43, died June 22 in Southwest Asia in the crash of a U-2 aircraft. He had completed flying a mission and was returning to his base when the crash occurred. He was assigned to the 1st Reconnaissance Squadron, Beale Air Force Base, CA. He was from Rancho California, CA. LCDR Erik S. Kristensen, age 33, was killed while conducting combat operations when the MH-47 helicopter that he was aboard crashed in the Kumar province of Afghanistan on June 28. He was assigned to SEAL Team Ten, Virginia Beach, VA. He was from San Diego, CA. Petty Officer 2nd Class Matthew G. Axelson, age 29, died while conducting counter-terrorism operations in Kunar province, Afghanistan. Coalition forces located him while conducting a combat search and rescue operation July 10. He was assigned to SEAL Delivery Vehicle Team One, Pearl Harbor, HI. He was from Cupertino, CA. Thirty soldiers who were either from California or based in California have been killed while serving our country in Operation Enduring Freedom. I pray for these Americans and their families. Christopher Hoskins

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to honor the memory of the late Nels Daniel Niemi, an officer with the city of San Leandro Police Department. Officer Niemi was a 3-year veteran of the San Leandro Police Department who dedicated his life to his family, community, and Nation. He was tragically killed in the line of duty on July 25, 2005. Officer Niemi was born 42 years ago in Guam. A graduate of De La Salle High School in Concord, CA, Officer Niemi first worked as a network administrator in the computer industry. Officer Niemi also taught self-defense and gun-awareness classes, which raised his longtime interest in law enforcement. Four years ago, he decided to switch careers, and enrolled in the Police Academy. An officer with the San Leandro Police Department for the last 3 years, he excelled at his job. He was a dedicated and caring officer, who often used his computer expertise in investigations. Through his hard work and dedication to public safety, Officer Niemi earned the respect and admiration of those with whom he worked. Officer Niemi will long be remembered for his courage, service, and bravery. He will be missed by all who knew him. Officer Niemi is survived by his parents Rudie and Mildred Niemi; brother Jim; wife Dionne; daughter Gabrielle; and stepson Josh Hewitt. I extend my deepest sympathies to his family.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today that would ban additional oil and gas drilling in the Los Padres National Forest. My colleague from California, Senator Feinstein, joins me in this effort. Representative Capps introduced companion legislation in the House of Representatives earlier this month. Los Padres National Forest is on California's central coast, stretching from Monterey County's Big Sur down to Ventura and the western edge of Los Angeles County. Covering almost 1.75 million acres, it is California's third-largest national forest and one of the State's most visited. Los Padres National Forest is an ecological treasure and a recreational refuge in one of California's, indeed America's, most densely populated areas. It provides habitat for 20 threatened and endangered wildlife species, including the spectacular California condor. Los Padres also contains unexplored archaeological sites that contain Native American historical artifacts. Yet, despite these facts and strong local opposition to oil and gas drilling in the Forest, the Forest Service announced today that it will open up more than 52,000 acres of land to oil and gas drilling in Los Padres National Forest. While this is far less land than the Forest Service previously considered opening, additional drilling is simply unacceptable. That is why I am introducing legislation to prevent this new drilling, and any future drilling from occurring in Los Padres National Forest. Additional oil and gas drilling will threaten the pristine and unspoiled lands in the Forest. It could damage or destroy Native American artifacts. And, it could ruin recreational opportunities by contaminating streams and increasing air pollution. My legislation is a critical step toward protecting the irreplaceable natural, cultural, and recreational resources of the Los Padres National Forest. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Reserving the right to object.

Mrs. BOXER. I thank you. The majority leader said something here today that really surprised me. He said he is going to prove that the gun liability bill was one of the most important things we were going to do, and I want to know from the majority leader, does he think that bill is more important than the Defense authorization bill?

Mrs. BOXER. Does he think that the Defense authorization bill is not as important as gun liability?

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, my understanding is I have 20 minutes; is that correct?

Mrs. BOXER. I ask to be notified when I have used 14 minutes.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank Senator Coburn for his work on this amendment. I am very pleased to be a cosponsor. As he explains, this amendment will stop the Export-Import Bank from financing a project to construct nuclear powerplants in China. Earlier this year, the Ex-Im Bank agreed to provide $5 billion in loans or loan guarantees to the American subsidiary of a British company, Westinghouse Electric Company, so the company could bid on a contract to build nuclear powerplants in China. This deal will, if we do not stop it, be the largest deal in the history of the Ex-Im Bank. In fact, it would be nearly three times larger than the bank's previous deal, a $1.7 billion transaction in the mid-1980s. So this is not some small, inconsequential amendment. This is a big deal because this would be the biggest deal of the Ex-Im Bank since the 1980s, and three times the size of that deal. According to the Ex-Im Bank itself, some of these loans may go not to the company but directly to the Government of China. What is going on here? Over the last decade, China has emerged as an economic power. It is the sixth largest economy in the world with a gross domestic product of over $1.65 trillion. The economy is growing at 9.5 percent. What about our economic relationship with China? Last year, the United States had a trade deficit of $162 billion with China. This year, the trade deficit may go over $200 billion. This is in part because China purposely undervalued its currency in order to dump projects in America. Just last month, a company that is majority-owned by the Chinese Government offered to buy the American company, Unocol, for $18.5 billion. In addition--and this shocks me every time I read it--the Chinese Government owns $230 billion of our Treasury bonds on which we are paying billions of dollars of interest. The Chinese Government is not poor, and it does not need a loan backed by U.S. taxpayers. What would that $5 billion loan be used for? It would be used to help Westinghouse build nuclear powerplants in China, one of the riskiest investments possible. Remember, as Senator Coburn has explained, Westinghouse is the American subsidiary of a large British company. Since 1948, in the United States the nuclear power industry has received more than $66 billion of Federal research and development funding. I am the first to say, the majority of Senators support these types of subsidies. Why? Because we have not seen a nuclear powerplant built in America since 1973. Why? Because it is too risky an investment. But the Ex-Im Bank is prepared to put our American taxpayer dollars at risk for nuclear powerplants in China. Nuclear power is not only a risky investment here, but think about nuclear powerplants being built in China where the terribly weak standards on workplace safety glare out at us and the terribly weak standards of environmental protection stand out. That in itself takes the risk to a whole new level. There are several other aspects of this deal that do not make sense. It comes down to the same bottom line: Why should we use American taxpayer dollars for this risky investment? Again, the beneficiary is not an American company but a subsidiary of a British-Government-owned company. The Brits are great allies. We love them. But let them put their taxpayers on the line. Why do we have to put our taxpayers on the line? As Senator Coburn points out, the biggest argument against our amendment is this will create 5,000 American jobs if we agree to this risky loan. Let's ignore for a minute that the Chinese Government says it fully intends to develop for itself the ability to manufacture the parts that Westinghouse would be selling to them--a point made very dramatically by my colleague, Senator Coburn. The fact is, those 5,000 jobs will not last very long when the Chinese learn how to do the work. But, given that, that the 5,000 jobs will be created, we need to put that number in context. We are talking about $5 billion in loans and loan guarantees. It will create 5,000 jobs. U.S. manufacturers have estimated that China's undervaluation of its currency has resulted in the loss of 2 million American jobs. So why don't we do something to change this persistent unfair trade practice and create 2 million jobs--if everything was fair--not 5,000 jobs? If we can't do this through pressure by convincing the Chinese to change their practice or by pursuing a complaint with the WTO, surely there are easier ways to create 5,000 jobs. For example, spending $100 million--2 percent of the size of this deal--on transportation projects would create 5,000 jobs. According to the measurements used by the Small Business Administration, $5 billion in loans and loan guarantees to American small businesses would create 100,000 new jobs. What is wrong with this picture? If we are so ready to give loan guarantees, let's look at giving them right here to our small businesses. Of course we are not going down that path today. It is a point of priorities. Count me out for this. The 5,000 jobs are not real. They will not last long. It is a British-owned company. And we can do much more with $5 billion in loan guarantees to our small businesses and create 100,000 jobs. This Chinese nuclear powerplant deal is a bad deal from an American jobs standpoint. Another thing that makes no sense is that in order to build the nuclear powerplants, we would be selling our advanced nuclear technology to China. I say to my colleagues, wake up. Chinese Major General Zhu Chenghu said: If the Americans draw their missiles and position-guided ammunition into the target zone on China's territory, I think we will have to respond with nuclear weapons. The date was July 15, 4 days ago, that this major general threatened us with nuclear weapons. The same major general said on the same day to the Asian Wall Street Journal on the Financial Times: Of course the Americans will have to be prepared that hundreds of, or two hundreds of (or) even more cities will be destroyed by the Chinese. I believe this was stated in the context of the Taiwan situation. We are at the brink of giving a $5 billion loan, or loan guarantee, part of which, according to the Ex-Im Bank, will go directly to China to give them the technology they need so that this general can run around and make threats to use nuclear weapons. This is beyond belief. I hope and pray and maybe go so far as to trust this general is not reflective of reality in China. But even if you do not believe this guy has any clout, what a time to give them nuclear technology when one of their top military people is threatening us. What a time to give them the opportunity to steal our technology. China is one of the largest violators of U.S. intellectual property rights in the world. That is indisputable. Coming from California, I know too well the piracy of American movies, music, software, and other products committed by China. It costs American businesses billions of dollars every year. A movie and a record represents millions and billions of loss to my business people and American jobs, but it cannot kill. We are talking about nuclear technology. That can come back and bite us. We have to assume that the Chinese will pirate our nuclear technology if they pirate all our other technologies. They admit they are going to learn how to use it. When all is said, something is wrong with this picture. I conclude this portion of my remarks in this way. I will paint the picture as succinctly as I can. If the Ex-Im Bank's deal goes through, U.S. taxpayer dollars will be put at risk so that the Chinese Government can pay an American subsidiary of a British company to send U.S. nuclear technology to China where a major general has threatened to use nuclear weapons against the United States--all of this in order to undertake an incredibly risky financial investment, building nuclear powerplants. Not only is something wrong with this picture, something is horribly wrong with this picture. Am I permitted to refer to a House vote on the Senate floor?

Mrs. BOXER. In the House of Representatives a very similar amendment was offered. It passed with the type of coalition we see here, across the aisle. It passed 3 to 1. We have an opportunity today to follow the lead of our colleagues who ask us to stand with them. This deal makes no sense. The Coburn-Boxer amendment stops this deal in its tracks. I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment. I retain the remainder of my time and defer to Senator McConnell.

Mrs. BOXER. I will take just 30 seconds.