Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I ask for the yeas and nays on the Burns amendment and the Boxer amendment.

Mrs. BOXER. I defer to him. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER. That is very good.

Mrs. BOXER. That is reassuring.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, for several years now we have been debating a national energy policy. In 2002 and 2003, I voted against the Energy bills because I believed they were bad for California and emphasized expanding old, dirty sources of energy instead of investing in clean, renewable energy. Today's bill, however, is slightly better. It is more balanced and more protective of consumers. I will, therefore, vote for it. However, this is not a perfect bill, and it contains many provisions that I oppose. I am voting to move the process forward today, but if the bill returns to us from conference more like the House bill, I will have to vote against it. Let me begin with how this bill is better than previous bills. For the first time, we have an Energy bill that creates a Renewable Portfolio Standard, RPS. What that means is that utility companies will have to get 10 percent of their energy from renewable resources, such as wind and solar, by the year 2020. That is enough to supply 56 million U.S. homes with electricity generated by renewable sources. There are a variety of other provisions in the bill that will encourage conservation, energy efficiency, and development and use of clean sources of energy. For example, there are $6.4 billion in tax breaks in the bill to provide incentives for alternative and renewable fuels. That includes something I have been advocating for several years--extending and strengthening the tax break for people who purchase hybrid cars. It also includes a tax deduction for energy- efficient buildings, the production of energy-efficient appliances, and the expansion of the credit for environmentally friendly geothermal facilities. Unlike previous Energy bills, this bill actually contains some protections for consumers. We in California know all too well what happens when energy companies are allowed to manipulate the market and gouge consumers. This bill specifically prohibits manipulative practices in the electricity market, and it contains provisions for better accountability and more transparency so that consumers can know what is happening. Speaking of the electricity crisis in California, we are still waiting for the refunds that are owed to us. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, found that rates were unjust and unreasonable; they found that markets were manipulated. They have ordered some refunds, but California has yet to see a penny 4 years later. And FERC continues to drag its feet in ordering the full $8.9 billion that is owed to my State. That is why I am pleased that this bill includes my amendment calling on FERC to conclude action on the refunds issue and requiring FERC, if it has not done so by the end of this year, to explain to Congress what exactly has been done and to spell out a timetable for the rest of the process. Californians deserve their refunds, and I hope my amendment will finally bring this matter to a conclusion. I am also glad the Senate approved an amendment Senators Dorgan and Stabenow and I offered that requires the Federal Trade Commission to investigate the possible manipulation of the price of gasoline. We are seeing unprecedented prices at the pump that cannot be completely explained by the rise in crude oil prices. Oil companies should not be making undeserved, windfall profits at the expense of consumers who, in many cases, have no alternative but to drive to work. While I oppose the ethanol mandate in this bill, I am pleased that the bill includes a proposal I originally offered with Senator Lugar to count each gallon of ethanol made from agricultural waste products as 2.5 gallons toward meeting the mandate. This will be a big help to both the farmers and consumers of California. I am also pleased that this bill contains my original proposal to provide grants for the construction of agricultural waste ethanol production facilities. As I mentioned, one of the bad things about this bill is the ethanol mandate. Even with the Feinstein provision to exempt California during the summer months, I am still concerned about what this mandate will mean for future gasoline prices in my State. I am also adamantly opposed to the provision of this bill that requires an inventory of energy resources in America's Outer Continental Shelf. This could easily lead to future oil and gas development in some coastal areas. And an ``inventory'' is not as innocuous as it sounds. It will be conducted with seismic airguns, which shoot sounds into the seafloor for mapping. These sounds can injure marine mammals and fish, possibly leading to beachings and reduced fish catches. The bill grants FERC the sole authority over the siting of liquefied natural gas terminals onshore, denying States the right to have a say in the decision. This bill lacks what is probably the surest way to reduce our crippling dependence on foreign oil--increasing mileage standards on automobiles. Raising the fuel economy of passenger automobiles to 40 miles a gallon by 2016 would save about 95 billion gallons of oil by 2016. Finally, I want to mention my disappointment at this bill's heavy reliance on nuclear energy at a time when we still have no solution for the nuclear waste problem and still have safety concerns about nuclear facilities. The bill reauthorizes the Price-Anderson Act to put the taxpayers on the hook in case of an accident, and it provides tax incentives and loan guarantees to encourage the construction of more nuclear powerplants. This does not make sense. We are subsidizing and encouraging the production of more nuclear waste when we have no place to put it. As you can see, this is not a perfect bill. But, again, I will vote for it today in order to move the process forward and because it is better than the previous two Energy bills. I hope that the Senate conferees will fight to maintain the Senate's language during the conference. If they do not--if this bill returns to the Senate looking more like the backward-thinking House bill--I will have to vote against it.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I rise to salute a wonderful and historic event that is about to take place in my home State. On Friday, July 1, 2005, Antonio Villaraigosa will be sworn in as mayor of the great city of Los Angeles, CA. With nearly 4 million residents, Los Angeles is a huge and dynamic city, and running it well will be a huge challenge. But Antonio Villaraigosa is ready, willing, and able to do the job. I believe that Mayor Villaraigosa has the intelligence, talent, energy, courage, compassion, imagination, and experience needed to unite Los Angeles and move it forward to new greatness. Antonio has shown this ability throughout his career as a labor leader, civic leader, and elected official. He has worked with Democrats and Republicans from all backgrounds and all parts of California to improve education, protect the rights of working families, expand health care coverage, and make our communities safer, better places to live. Time and again, he has demonstrated the leadership skills that will help him make Los Angeles one of the world's great cities of the 21st century. Antonio Villaraigosa has already made history by becoming the first Latino mayor of Los Angeles since 1872, but he has set his sights even higher. He hopes to make history by making Los Angeles work for all its residents, and I will do all I can to help him.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise to share with my colleagues the outstanding accomplishment of one of my constituents, Samuel Nassie of Paradise, CA. I am so proud to announce that in May 2005, Samuel was named the American Legion's national ``2005 Eagle Scout of the Year.'' The title of Eagle Scout represents the highest rank a Boy Scout can achieve. It takes years of hard work, dedication, leadership and community service to earn this honor that only 4 percent of all Boy Scouts achieve. Therefore, to be selected as the American Legion's Eagle Scout of the Year from hundreds other highly qualified Eagle Scouts across the Nation is an extraordinary achievement and I am very proud of Samuel for his accomplishments that led to this meritorious honor. Samuel's list of awards and accomplishments are too numerous to list today, but I would like to share with you some of his work that proves Samuel's dedication to his community is second to none. He was the first Boy Scout in Northern California to receive the William T. Hornaday Award, the oldest conservation award in the history of this country, with only 1,000 recipients in its 94-year history. Because of his service to the community, Samuel earned the Medal of Merit Award and the Congressional Youth Award in Bronze, Silver, and Gold. At the age of 13, Samuel achieved the rank of Eagle Scout. He was chosen as Eagle Scout of the Year for both California and the United States by the Sons of the American Revolution. The Veterans of Foreign Wars also chose him as Eagle Scout of the Year for California and awarded him second place in the United States. He is a member of the Boy Scout Honor Society, and a life member of the National Eagle Scout Association. Samuel remains active in the Boy Scouts of America by teaching at Boy Scout camps and serving as a Junior Scoutmaster for his local Boy Scout troop. I would like to highlight two of Samuel's community projects that are particularly noteworthy. In his first community service project, ``Veterans Honor,'' Samuel created a program to locate, identify, plot and record the location of every veteran at his local cemetery. Another community service project, ``Buckets Full of Batteries,'' created an environmental program to recycle household batteries. Four years ago, he implemented this program in two school districts and over 20 businesses in Paradise, and is now working with 4 other cities to expand his program. Samuel maintains a 4.0 GPA, and plans to attend college and study American History Education and Business. Samuel has selflessly given years of his time and energy to the community. Samuel Nassie brings a great deal of pride to California. He has accomplished more in his 17 years than most of us will in our entire lives. His community, State, and country are fortunate to have a citizen of his caliber. I have no doubt that his future will be a bright and fulfilling one.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Reserving the right to object, some of us have to catch a flight. I was hoping we would get the vote off here.

Mrs. BOXER. I object if it is more than a minute. That is how close it is. I can give him a minute.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, our Nation is faced with the threat of global climate change that could fundamentally alter all of our lives and the lives of our children. California has a great deal to lose if we do not take steps to halt and reverse climate change. My State enjoys tremendous ecological diversity ranging from our cool and wet redwood forests of the north coast, to the hot Mojave and Colorado deserts in the southeast, to the vast and fertile agricultural stretches in the central valley. Climate change is a very real threat to those natural ecosystems. Scientific predictions indicate that human-induced global warming may produce a 3- to 10-degree rise in temperature over the next 97 years. That may not initially sound dramatic. But it would be enough to change the timing and amount of precipitation in my State. This could, for instance, lead to decreased summer stream flows, which would intensify the already significant controversy over the allocation of water for urban, agricultural and environmental needs. Scientists also predict that by the year 2050, California will face higher average temperatures every month of the year in every part of the State. The average temperature in June in the Sierra Nevada Mountains could increase by 11 degrees Fahrenheit. The snow pack in the Sierra, which is a vital source of water in the State, is expected to drop by 13 feet and to have melted entirely nearly 2 months earlier than it does now. This could reduce the amount of precious water on which we now rely for agriculture, drinking water and other purposes. The solution to the climate change problem is to first reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In this regard, the McCain-Lieberman amendment would be a meaningful step in the right direction. It would create an innovative cap and trade system to reduce emissions. In 2010, the system would cap greenhouse gas emissions at the level that was released in the year 2000. It would then allow facilities to buy or sell credits that would allow for greenhouse gas emissions but within the overall cap. This could efficiently reduce overall levels of emissions while allowing flexibility for certain industries. The second step in solving the climate change problem is to increase the use of renewable resources, such as wind and solar. Unfortunately, this is where the McCain-Lieberman amendment doesn't just fall short, but would be a step backwards. The amendment includes provisions to provide financial assistance to so-called ``clean'' technologies. On its face, it sounds good. But, the amendment makes nuclear power eligible for these subsidies. Here we go again. The nuclear industry is once again knocking on Uncle Sam's door asking for Federal subsidies to pad their bottom line. We should oppose the nuclear industry's latest effort to raid the public purse. Nuclear power is not the solution to climate change, and it is not ``clean.'' The nuclear industry has not solved its waste and safety problems. By subsidizing the creation of new nuclear plants, we are condoning the creation of more waste and turning a blind eye to the hazards associated with nuclear power. Proponents of these subsidies say that they are not limited to nuclear power, and that many types of zero or low-emission technologies could benefit. However, the amendment creates an unfair playing field for this assistance by side-stepping the costs of nuclear power's waste and safety problems. A candid analysis of energy choices must consider the full life-cycle costs associated with each technology. This amendment fails to contain such an analysis. Thus, the amendment unfairly and irresponsibly ignores nuclear power's biggest problem--the waste. This could easily tip the scales in favor of more subsidies for nuclear plants, and less for other truly renewable technologies. The nuclear industry has already benefited from $145 billion in Federal subsidies over the last 50 years. Truly clean and renewable sources of energy, such as wind and solar, have received just $5 billion. Moreover, these new subsidies could go to some of the world's biggest companies. The Top-10 nuclear energy producing corporations in the Nation are among the largest companies in the world. These companies include Duke Energy, Exelon and Dominion Resources, which are among the 200 largest companies in the world. Do these large companies need Federal subsidies? No. These ten corporations earned more than $10 billion in profits in 2004 selling energy from a variety of sources. Subsidies for new nuclear plants are not a sound investment. The Federal Energy Information Administration and a representative of the nuclear industry both acknowledge that nuclear plants are not a viable technology without new subsidies. The EIA has stated that between 2003 and 2025, ``new nuclear power plants are not expected to be economical.'' Thomas Capps, the Chief Executive Officer of Dominion Resources--which has more than $55 billion in assets--was asked about the economics of constructing new nuclear plants. He said, ``I am all for nuclear power--as long as Dominion doesn't have to take the risk . . .'' Instead of the nuclear industry taking the risk, the nuclear industry wants the public to shoulder the burden. New subsidies for new nuclear plants are unnecessary. The Department of Energy has shown that we can drastically reduce our Nation's climate change pollution without increasing the number of nuclear plants. We can and should solve the problem of climate change without increasing the problems of nuclear waste and safety. I wish that I could support the McCain-Lieberman amendment, as I did 2 years ago. But by making the nuclear industry eligible for yet more subsidies, as a matter of principle, I cannot vote for this year's version.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am pleased to co-sponsor Senator Feinstein's amendment to provide Governors with veto authority on the siting of onshore liquified natural gas, LNG, facilities. This is an extremely important issue in California, and I commend my colleague for her amendment. The energy bill we are debating hands full authority for LNG siting decisions to a federal entity, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC. It denies States a role in deciding whether and where LNG terminals may be located on our coastlines. This is a misguided proposal. Does FERC have a better understanding than a State's Governor of the potential environmental impact of an LNG facility located on or near the State's shore? Does FERC better understand the potential safety risk of facilities located near residential areas? Is FERC better qualified than a State to judge whether a proposed LNG facility would pose an unacceptable security risk to the area? Can FERC make a better judgment than the Governor of a State as to whether the benefits of an LNG facility will outweigh the drawbacks? The answer to all of these questions is ``no.'' Only individual States can determine the best solution for their citizens when so much is at stake in terms of safety, security, and the sanctity of our environment. We in California are all too aware that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's decisions may not be in our best interests. For too long during California's energy crisis in 2000-2001, FERC ignored the problem and took no action to help. Even today, four years later, we are still waiting for FERC to order refunds on the unjust and unreasonable rates charged by energy companies that were manipulating the market. We in California do not trust FERC to protect our interests. I recognize that this country has a growing need for natural gas resources, and the construction of LNG facilities will help meet that need in the years to come. I am not arguing that no LNG terminals should be constructed on or close to our shores. I am simply arguing that FERC should not be the final arbiter in determining where those facilities are located. Each State deserves to decide for itself whether the benefits of such a facility outweigh the costs. I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Seismic air guns have been shown to result in severely diminished fish catches by so severely startling the fish, they quickly leave the area or descend to the sea floor, seeking shelter from the noise. One study showed that when seismic blasts had been conducted in 1996, catch rates of cod and haddock declined between 45 percent and 70 percent over a 1,400-square-mile area, and 5 days later the catch rate had still not recovered. I ask for an additional minute on top of my minute to finish. The fact is, with so many fishery stocks already depleted, should we really do anything else to harm them, and can our fishermen afford the risk? Marine mammals such as whales also use sound to locate food, avoid predators, care for young, and navigate the oceans. Seismic blasts can interfere with all of these critical activities. Air gun blasts have been observed to affect the feeding behavior of sperm whales in the Gulf of Mexico, migrating bowhead whales in the Beaufort Sea off the Alaskan coast, and harbor porpoises, which appear to be dodging and evading the sounds dozens of miles away from the blasts. Indeed, last year, the International Whaling Commission's Scientific Committee concluded that the increased sound from seismic surveys was cause for serious concern. Mr. President, I see the Senator from New Jersey is here. We are running out of time, so I am going to wrap this up and cede the rest of the time to the Senator from New Jersey. I hope everyone supports this bipartisan amendment before us.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am proud to sponsor the Martinez-Nelson- Corzine-Boxer amendment to strike the OCS inventory language from the Energy bill. For millions of Americans living near our coasts, this amendment is arguably the most important we will debate on this bill. We know huge numbers of people live within 50 miles of America's coastlines. Few things are synonymous with California more than the beautiful beaches and the coasts. We have some pictures to show what this means to our children. This is a scene I remember with my own children and now with my own grandson when he comes to visit California. This is what we think about. The natural beauty that is the California coast helps form our State's identity, as these pictures show. I will show you another one at this time as well. When I look at this, I just think: California. The coast is a huge reason so many millions of Americans have chosen California as their home. Indeed, out of our 36 million Californians, 21 million Californians live in coastal counties. That is roughly 64 percent of the State's population. And there is a reason for it. This is God's gift to our State and to the people of this country and, frankly, to the people of the world who come to spend time on California's coastline and beaches. The California coast is home to dozens of threatened and endangered species, including the short-tailed albatross, California Gnatcatcher, sea otters, chinook and coho salmon, steelhead trout, guadalupe fur seal, and several species of whales. Our coast is a true national treasure. But Californians are not the only people who treasure our coastline. We know that tourists, millions of them, come to our State, generating $51 billion in annual revenues for our State. The protection of California's coasts, frankly, as much as all the other coasts we will protect, is not just an environmental necessity, it is an economic necessity. The underlying bill could very well lead to more offshore oil drilling, could devastate my State and its way of life, and I trust that this bipartisan legislation being offered by Senators Martinez and Nelson will be agreed to because the inventory that is agreed to in this bill could encourage further drilling in the not-so-distant future, putting all of our coasts at risk. Make no mistake about it. This inventory is not a benign compiling of a grocery list of resources. The inventory proponents would have us believe that, but it is really not benign. The inventory will be conducted using seismic air guns which use explosive blasts to map rock formations beneath the sea. Sound from these blasts can be detected for thousands of miles, and hundreds of millions of blasts would be required to survey America's Outer Continental Shelf. These seismic blasts have been shown to have major consequences for marine life. So I do not see how it makes sense to say, on the one hand, we are protecting our beautiful coastline with moratoria and then allow the inventory to go forward in these areas. Most fish use hearing to detect predators, find prey, communicate, and find mates. Loss of hearing can have profound, even fatal effects on our fish. So why would we take God's precious gift and subject it to this kind of trauma? Frankly, it is wrong. To me, it is almost a moral issue, that we protect the beauty we have been given, this God-given beauty.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation now? Are we having speeches on the amendment to strike the OCS inventory by Senators Martinez and Nelson and Corzine; is that correct?

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask to be notified when I have spoken for 5 minutes. I know Senator Corzine is coming to speak. If you could let me know when my 5 minutes is up, I would appreciate it.

Mrs. BOXER. I ask for another minute.

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

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am honored to introduce today a bill-- cosponsored by Senator Feinstein--to designate a trail in the Headwaters Forest Reserve in California after John L. Burton, one of California's great public servants. The entire California Democratic delegation in the House, led by Representative George Miller, introduced the same bill last week. John served honorably in the United States House of Representatives in the early 1980s and in the California State Assembly, before being elected to the California State Senate. There, in 1998, his colleagues elected him as the California Senate's President Pro Tem. John devoted his career to the service of all Californians, and for that, we honor him with this legislation. Designating this particular trail is a fitting tribute because a few years ago, John was instrumental in protecting the pristine and invaluable land that is now known as the Headwaters Forest Reserve. Comprised of more than 7,000 acres of ancient redwoods, many of which are over 2,000 years old and 300 feet high, the Reserve was saved from potentially devastating logging in 1999. Numerous plant species and wildlife, including the Marbled Murrelet, dwell in this Reserve. The Reserve also protects rivers and streams that provide habitat essential for threatened salmon. For his service to the people of California and his essential role in protecting a priceless parcel of California land, I am proud to introduce the John L. Burton Trail Act. Through this small action, we recognize and honor a great man and his great work.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am honored to introduce today a bill-- cosponsored by Senator Feinstein--to designate a trail in the Headwaters Forest Reserve in California after John L. Burton, one of California's great public servants. The entire California Democratic delegation in the House, led by Representative George Miller, introduced the same bill last week. John served honorably in the United States House of Representatives in the early 1980s and in the California State Assembly, before being elected to the California State Senate. There, in 1998, his colleagues elected him as the California Senate's President Pro Tem. John devoted his career to the service of all Californians, and for that, we honor him with this legislation. Designating this particular trail is a fitting tribute because a few years ago, John was instrumental in protecting the pristine and invaluable land that is now known as the Headwaters Forest Reserve. Comprised of more than 7,000 acres of ancient redwoods, many of which are over 2,000 years old and 300 feet high, the Reserve was saved from potentially devastating logging in 1999. Numerous plant species and wildlife, including the Marbled Murrelet, dwell in this Reserve. The Reserve also protects rivers and streams that provide habitat essential for threatened salmon. For his service to the people of California and his essential role in protecting a priceless parcel of California land, I am proud to introduce the John L. Burton Trail Act. Through this small action, we recognize and honor a great man and his great work.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am glad we are going to vote on my amendment. I understand that Senator Domenici will move to table. That is fine with me, as long as we have a vote. Again, this is a very interesting issue in terms of what our responsibility is. As Members of the Senate, we have a responsibility to protect the health and safety of the people of our country. Why on Earth would we give a waiver of liability to the makers of ethanol when, in fact, we are not sure what is going to happen with heavy use of ethanol? We are not sure whether it is going to cause a problem for our people and who is going to have to pay to clean up the mess. We know what happened with MTBE. We know it was in communities such as Lake Tahoe, Santa Monica, and communities in the Northeast and all across the country. I remember I had a map that showed where MTBE was a problem. It is practically in every State in the Union. The courts have made it clear that the people who made the MTBE have to come into these communities and clean it up. Now we are saying with ethanol, on the one hand, it is safe. Well, if it is so safe, why do we have to give it a special safe harbor and people give up their right to recover in their community in Tennessee or communities in California? The fact is, they will say the waiver of liability is very narrow but, in fact, what they have waived is the only course of action a community can pursue. Then you will hear: This is different because we are mandating ethanol. Therefore, we should protect the people who make it. We mandated airbags, and we didn't give a liability waiver to the people who make airbags. We mandate pollution control devices, but we don't give a liability waiver to the people who make it. So this is about the sheer power of special interests. Let's not put our communities at risk. We could debate whether we ought to have this ethanol mandate. As we will see how it comes out, some people favor it, some don't. We should agree to protect our people. I hope my colleagues will vote against the motion to table the Boxer amendment. I thank the Chair.

Mrs. BOXER. Thank you, Mr. President. According to EPA's Blue Ribbon Panel on Oxygenates in gasoline, which include ethanol and MTBE, ethanol is extremely soluble in water and should spread if leaked into the environment at the same rate as MTBE. It may spread plumes of benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, and xylene because ethanol may inhibit the breakdown of these toxic materials. Although ethanol contributes some clean air benefits, it also increases the formation of nitrogen oxides, which lead to increases in smog. So I think if you listen to the experts and you forget the special interests, you will support my amendment. We need to ask ourselves, are we in the business of letting people off the hook, people who have a responsibility for what they are putting into our gasoline, into our air, into the ground? We mandated airbags, and we did not say to those manufacturers that they should not be liable. If there is a defective product problem with an airbag, people can hold the companies responsible if it does not work or it harms them. Why would we give a free pass to ethanol? There is only one answer: special interests, powerful, powerful special interests. There is no other answer that you can come up with. If we do not learn from our mistakes, we are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past. My amendment will eliminate the special interest liability exemption for ethanol in this amendment. It means that ethanol will not be treated any better or any worse than other fuels. It will mean ethanol will be treated the same way as any other fuel. We should not shift the burden of cleaning up any problems caused by ethanol to our communities. The polluters should pay. The safe harbor liability exemption for ethanol should be taken out of this amendment. I have to say to my friends, I know how anxious you are to have ethanol. I know it means a lot to the corn producers, and, frankly, it means a lot to my agricultural people. I have some good language in this bill dealing with ethanol made from other materials. But I still believe that my people who will produce this ethanol should not be left off the hook if there is a serious problem to the health of the people of the United States of America. So the amendment is simple. I hope we can have a good vote, a solid vote on this amendment. I yield the floor with the understanding that I will close the debate. Thank you very much, Mr. President.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mrs. BOXER. I am not asking unanimous consent. I am asking for the yeas and nays.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise today to acknowledge a special milestone for one of America's beloved entertainers and philanthropists. I am pleased to extend my sincere congratulations to Hugh O'Brian as he celebrates his 80th birthday. Hugh O'Brian came into the public eye in the role of Wyatt Earp in the 1950s television series, ``The Life and Legend of Wyatt Earp.'' An accomplished stage and screen actor, he used his talents to bring history to life while expanding his influential role well beyond the theater and television to the broader stage. In 1958, Mr. O'Brian established the organization HOBY, Hugh O'Brian Youth Leadership, aiming to provide support for young people striving for excellence. Over the past 47 years, HOBY has promoted extensive volunteerism, active global citizenship, and bright futures for young people. Through HOBY, Mr. O'Brian encourages local, national, and international communities to be responsive to the needs of our future leaders, empowering countless young people with knowledge and conscientious role models. We are extremely fortunate that people like Hugh O'Brian are committed to bringing people together in the spirit of creative problem-solving and positive social change. In his many roles, Mr. O'Brian has led, inspired, and provided hope. On the occasion of his 80th birthday, please join me in congratulating Mr. Hugh O'Brian on his lifetime of accomplishment.