Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, in March 2000, I introduced legislation to deal with the high price of gasoline. At the time, the price of gasoline had reached a startlingly high $2.15 per gallon in California. Today, gasoline prices on average in California are $2.43 per gallon, 13 percent higher. The problem is getting worse, not better, and so today I am reintroducing my bill to control the manipulation of gasoline prices. We have heard that higher gasoline prices are due solely to higher crude oil prices. I just do not buy it. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, from January 17 through April 11, the cost of crude oil rose 10.8 percent. During the same time period, the average retail price of gasoline in the United States rose 24.9 percent. Something is not right. Look at the profits that are being pocketed by the big oil companies. Compared to the same time last year, oil companies' first-quarter profits are dramatically higher. Look at the number of mergers and acquisitions in the industry over the past several months. The continued consolidation only reduces competition and increases energy costs. Look at the refiners that may be taking plants off-line at will for ``routine maintenance,'' which is reminiscent of the electricity crisis when generators took their plants off-line for ``routine maintenance'' in order to artificially increase prices. My legislation will shed light on manipulation and hopefully curtail it. The bill requires the Federal Trade Commission to automatically investigate the gasoline market for manipulation anytime average gasoline prices increase in any State by 20 percent in a period of 3 months or less and remain at that level for 7 days or more. Market manipulation would include, but it is not limited to, collusion or the creation of artificial shortages such as unnecessarily taking refineries off-line. In determining the trigger, the gasoline price used would be the Energy Information Agency's weekly pricing of regular grade gasoline. A report on the FTC's investigation would be due to Congress 14 days after the price trigger. Under the bill, the FTC would be required within 2 weeks of issuing the report to hold a public meeting to discuss the findings. If the finings indicate that there is market manipulation, then the FTC would work with the State's attorney general to determine the penalties. If the findings indicate that there is no market manipulation, then the U.S. Department of Energy must officially decide, within 2 weeks, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve should be used in order to ease prices and stabilize supply. We need to deter market manipulation. Otherwise, we risk serious price gouging with no accountability to consumers. My legislation offers a reasonable standard for an investigation and a reasonable time frame in which to complete that investigation. I believe the threat of these investigations and the public light that would be shed on the system will keep gasoline prices down. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this bill.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to recognize the Pontifical Visit of His Holiness Karekin II, Catholicos of All Armenians, to the Western Diocese of the Armenian Church of North America during the month of June 2005. The Catholicos will visit the Western Diocese, headquartered in Burbank in my home State of California and travel around California from June 1 through 20. As the 132nd Catholicos of all Armenians, His Holiness Karekin II is spiritual leader to more than 7 million Armenian Apostolic Christians worldwide. I would also like to recognize the Western Diocese Primate, His Eminence Archbishop Hovnan Derderian, for his good works on behalf of Armenian-Americans in California and the Western U.S. This momentous occasion marks the second Pontifical visit of the Catholicos to the Western Diocese. The visit has been titled ``The Renaissance of Faith'' because it marks a source of spiritual inspiration and reawakening for Christian Armenians, whose faith is 1700 years old. The Diocese of the Armenian Church, established 107 years ago in Worcester, MA, originally served Armenian churches in the United States and Canada. In 1927, the Western Diocese of the Armenian Church of North America was established by a directive from the Mother See. The establishment of the Western Diocese was an historic occasion, which marked the growth of a strong Armenian community in California and the Western United States. The Western Diocese was originally headquartered in Fresno. In 1957, the headquarters were moved to Los Angeles. In 1994, the headquarters were damaged by the Northridge Earthquake. Later that year, the Diocesan Assembly decided to purchase a new Diocesan Headquarters. In 1997, the Western Diocese officially moved into a multipurpose complex located in Burbank, CA, which will be the future site of the Mother Cathedral. This Pontifical visit is even more special because the Catholicos will be there in June to bless the foundation stones at the groundbreaking of the new Mother Cathedral. The visit is also appropriately timed to coincide with two important anniversaries--the 90th Anniversary of the commemoration of the Armenian Genocide and the 1600th Anniversary of the creation of the Armenian alphabet. Earlier this year, I joined my Armenian friends in commemorating the 90th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide, which was the first genocide of the 20th century. The Armenian alphabet, along with the Armenian language, has contributed immensely to the vibrant continuity of Armenian culture. The Catholicos' visit will highlight these two anniversaries and further empower Armenians in the Western Diocese to continue their long-fought efforts for justice. I am honored to recognize this historic and joyous visit, which will strengthen ties between Armenia and Armenians in California. I know that His Holiness Karekin II will have a very special visit to California and I wish the Armenian community in California an increased sense of purpose and inspiration.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, on the occasion of its 100th anniversary, I am proud to recognize and honor the American Thoracic Society for its continuing commitment to the prevention and treatment of respiratory disease. While respiratory disease may not pose the same public threat that it did 100 years ago, we cannot forget, nor overlook, the need to continue our fight against such debilitating illnesses. It is imperative that we continue to explore the causes and effects of respiratory disease as well as educating the public here and abroad. Since its establishment in 1905, the American Thoracic Society has demonstrated an unyielding determination to reduce the number of deaths from respiratory disorder and acute-illness. I commend ATS for its dedication to the cause. ATS not only directs its attention to the care and treatment of respiratory disease patients, it also places preventative practices at the forefront of its mission. Through extensive scientific research, ATS has established itself as a leader in the discovery of new information and knowledge. Furthermore, ATS has developed numerous educational programs, as well as several medical journals, to help keep both the medical community and the public up to date on new scientific information and innovative practices. Finally, ATS has established itself as a leading advocate of respiratory research, paving the way for unprecedented developments in the treatment of respiratory disease. As host of the world's leading respiratory medicine conference, which provides doctors and scientists the opportunity to share their successes with specialists from all over the world, ATS has truly confirmed its status as a leader in the medical community. Over the years, ATS has grown to meet the needs of the changing world in which we live, while never losing sight of its basic goals of prevention and treatment. I congratulate the American Thoracic Society on its 100 years of outstanding research and innovation.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I understand that I have 15 minutes. I might take 10 or I might want to take another 10 in addition. I ask unanimous consent I may speak up to 25 minutes.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 minute to close.

Mrs. BOXER. What I want to say, before my friend from Iowa leaves, thank you so much, Senator Harkin. I think what you addressed in your remarks is something that has been missing from this debate, and that is what the people are telling us back home. They, in my opinion, do not want to see the filibuster go away because they understand it is a very important part of the American fabric of politics for more than 200 years. They also understand, without a doubt, that the issues that concern their everyday lives are just not being addressed. My friend laid them out beautifully. In Iowa, CA, our people are feeling the same things. They are struggling with high gas prices, lack of health care, worried about the cost of health care, and education. They are absolutely frightened about the President's attack on Social Security. They want us to fight back. They want us to solve the Social Security long-range problem without reducing benefits, without taking away Social Security, and not turning Social Security into a guaranteed gamble. These are issues that are key. Transportation is another issue my friend mentioned. I thank Senator Harkin for his contribution tonight. I also thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who took this Senate back from a cliff where there were very treacherous waters below. They turned us away from a power grab by the majority, from a move that was clearly an abuse of power. They called it themselves, those who wanted this option, the nuclear option. They were right to call it the nuclear option because it would have been so devastating, not only to the Senate, not only to the people of this country, but to the foundation of our Republic--the checks and balances which were put into this system by our brilliant Founders who came together. As Senator Byrd reminded us tonight that Benjamin Franklin said: ``I've given you a Republic, if you can keep it.'' That is the key. Can we keep the Republic? We do not keep a representative democracy such as this if we allow one side, whichever side that is, to trample upon the rights of the other. What happens is you wind up trampling on the rights of the American people themselves. The other day I was making a mental note of who supported the nuclear option, taking away the right of any Senator to filibuster a judicial nominee, who in this body supported that, versus those who thought it ought to be sustained and we ought to have that right. When we add up the number of people we represent on each side, the senators on the side that wanted to keep the filibuster represented far more people, millions more people. So this was a moment in time when the rights of so many of those people would have been taken away, just as the rights of their Senators would be taken away. Again, I thank my colleagues on both sides who worked so hard to bring us back from this abuse of power. I hope that it means forever. I personally hope we never hear the words ``nuclear option'' again. It would be best for this country if we allowed the 200-year history plus of this country to sustain us. The filibuster started in 1806. This is the filibuster's 200th year. It has been used sparingly. Let's look at how many times we have blocked President Bush's judges. I hope I don't have to bring this chart out again. I hope we are done with this. But for tonight we need to summarize where we have been. Mr. President, 208 to 10 is what caused all the angst by the Republicans. They wanted to take away our right to block 5 percent of George Bush's judges. As I have said at home in many meetings, if any one of you got 95 percent of what you wanted in your life, you would be smiling. I would be--unless I wanted everything and I thought I knew best and I was the smartest. We all go through those times when we think that way but one would hope at this point when we get here, after working a little bit here in the Senate--and I admit I didn't see it right in the beginning--we come to respect rights of the minority. The filibuster has been used rarely. I also want to discuss what I call the filibuster fantasy world that cropped up in these debates. I will show a chart I was going to use in the debate which, thankfully, we do not have to have. But for the purposes of history, we ought to look at what was shaping up. First of all, every day we came to the Senate we heard Republicans say: The Democrats started the filibusters on judges. That is funny, in a way, because the opposite is true. In modern times, the use of the filibuster began with Abe Fortas in the 1960s. I looked at a headline in the Washington Post from the 1960s. It said: ``Filibuster Launched Against Fortas.'' This was President Johnson's, a Democrat, nominee to the Supreme Court. The first paragraph of that Post article said: The Republicans launched an all-out filibuster against Abe Fortas. That is a fact. The filibuster fantasy says that Democrats started the filibusters on judges. The second fantasy we have heard repeatedly recently from Republicans is Republicans have never filibustered judges. That one I can state from personal experience does not hold up--I don't have to rely on newspapers; I don't have to rely on hearsay; I don't have to rely on folk tales. I was here and I saw the Republican filibuster against two terrific people from California, Marsha Berzon and Richard Paez. Guess what? That was not in the 1800s or the 1960s. It was the year 2000. And do Members know who voted to continue to filibuster Richard Paez? Bill Frist, the good doctor, who says he wants to take away our rights. Tonight he says he is backing off. He has no choice but to back off because, luckily, we had enough people from both sides of the aisle to pull us back from this precipice. Bill Frist himself filibustered Richard Paez. Pretty amazing for him to say that we should never filibuster when he filibustered, when his Republican colleagues are on the record saying they were proud to filibuster and it is their constitutional right to filibuster. So you can't rewrite the record book. We have a Congressional Record. We had a vote to end the filibuster on Richard Paez, a wonderful candidate put up by President Clinton. Bill Frist voted to filibuster that man. Yet he says if we Democrats vote to filibuster somebody, and I am quoting him, ``we are behaving badly.'' He said that four times tonight. Bad behavior. This is not a kindergarten class. This is not even high school. This is the Senate. When I decide to filibuster a judge, which is my prerogative, and will remain so, I am happy to say under this good agreement, I am not behaving badly, I am behaving as a Senator who has looked at this nominee, who has seen that this nominee is dangerous to America, who has seen that this nominee is extremist and will hurt the American families who I represent. Am I not behaving as a Senator? No, I am not behaving badly. Let's look at the other Republican filibuster fantasies. They say all judges should get an up-or-down vote. Do you know how many votes Priscilla Owen had so far? Four. She is about to have the fifth. Janice Rogers Brown has had one. Clinton judges, 61 of them, most of them never made it out of committee. Most of them were pocket filibustered. They never had an up-or-down vote. Every one of George Bush's nominees have had an up-or-down vote. They may not have made the 60 votes they needed to make because for 200 years-plus the Senate has had the right for extended debate. These people could not get the 60 votes. Why couldn't they get 60 votes? Because these nominees are so extreme. I will talk about one of them in a minute and tell Members why because it is an extraordinary circumstance. The President sent down a nominee who is out of the mainstream. First, I want to tell you a story about Orrin Hatch who was the Republican chairman of the Judiciary Committee for a time when Bill Clinton was President. Orrin Hatch called me into his office and he said: Senator Boxer, if you want to get a vote on a judge from California, don't send me anyone from the liberal side. Send me mainstream judges, Senator. Send me mainstream judges and we will be OK. We had a great chat. I said: Well, I am not so sure; maybe sometimes you want to have someone a little more liberal. He said: Don't discuss it with me. Mainstream judges. That's it. So for Orrin Hatch, when Bill Clinton was President, he had a litmus test. Mainstream judges. I didn't think it was that unreasonable. Where is the litmus test now on mainstream judges? It has gone out the windows. Alberto Gonzales himself said that Priscilla Owen's opinions were ``unconscionable judicial activism''. So we say to the President of the United States of America: Do what Bill Clinton did, send us mainstream judges and we do not have any problem with that. We will walk down this aisle proudly. Frankly, we did it 208 times. I am not sure this President has any cause for alarm. He got 95 percent of his judges, but he wants it all, after all, he is George Bush. We had a King George. We had a king. Now we want a President of all the people. We do not want a king. We want him to govern. We do not want him to rule. There is a difference. This wonderful agreement sustains our right in the future to step out if each of us determines there is a reason to filibuster. Now, again, the filibuster fantasy is that Priscilla Owen and Janice Rogers Brown have never had a vote in the Senate. I have already stated, they just cannot make the 60-vote cut because they are so out of the mainstream. Then there is this issue the Republicans have now said they want to change from the nuclear option to the constitutional option. Nothing in the Constitution prohibits filibusters. We know that. The Constitution says the Senate shall writes its own rules, which brings me to another point. Here is something I want the American people to know. I want my colleagues to understand. The Constitution says the Senate shall write its own rules, and Rule XXII of the Senate says if you want to change a rule of the Senate, folks, you have to get 67 votes to move to change the rules. It is important to do this when you change the rules of the Senate. The Constitution says we shall write our own rules. But the Senate rules do not envision a small group of Senators changing the rules. It ensures that a large group of Senators must approve of changing the Senate rules. If you have to change the rules, this is what you have to have 67 votes to close off debate for a rule change. Guess what? My Republican friends who brought us the nuclear option knew they could not get 67 votes to destroy the system of checks and balances, to change our government as we have known it for so many years. They could not get 67 votes, not even close. They even had to have Dick Cheney in the chair for this vote, folks, because it could be that close; 51, maybe. What do they do? How are they going to get around the rules of the Senate? Well, not to worry about the rules of the Senate. We will make a precedent. The Parliamentarian will say that Senators have a right to filibuster, absolutely. The Parliamentarian will say we need 67 votes to change the rules of the Senate, but Dick Cheney, sitting in the chair as a rubberstamp for this administration, as part of it, will say: I disagree with the Parliamentarian. We can change this right now by declaring by fiat no more filibusters of judges ever again. That is the new precedent. I would ask my friends, what kind of an example is this to set for our children? Let's say our children go to school, and they know to get an 80 percent on a test is a B, and they get a 75 percent. Let's say they then go to their teacher and say: Oh, I got a 75 percent, and I don't want to come home with a C. Can you just change the rules today for me and make it an A? Change the rules. Or if you are serving on a jury, and everyone has to agree on the guilt of someone, but, oh, they decide on this day, only 9 of the 12 have to agree. I could go on and on with examples like this. The fact is, it is a terrible precedent for our children to see grown people in the Senate change more than 200 years of Senate history by going around the rules of the Senate. I was here when I was just a freshman. I was annoyed with the filibuster. I was really annoyed. The Republicans were filibustering all the time. I thought it was terrible. One of my colleagues said: Let's change the rules. I said: Great. I think President Clinton ought to get his whole agenda through. I am tired of hearing about what I don't agree with. I was wrong. I did not know I was wrong. I was wrong. But one thing I did, I did not try to do it with some slipshod, fake precedent change. I tried to do it by getting 67 votes. We did not even come near 20 because it is a losing proposition. The nuclear option would have been a disaster. And I have to tell you, out in the countryside, the polling is showing that the people are sick of this place. They do not understand what we are doing. We are irrelevant to them. And indeed it is no wonder we are viewed this way given all the effort we have expended on this nuclear option business. It simply fits into what the people have been saying for a while, that we just do not get it. They are paying these gas prices at the pump, and what are we doing? Nothing. The President could release some strategic petroleum reserves. Oh, no, the first President in modern times never to do that. And, yes, gas is going down a few pennies, I am happy about that. But, believe you me, it is not going down far enough. What are we doing about that? Nothing that I could see. No, no, we are wasting our time on the nuclear option because the President wanted 100 percent of what he asked for. He did not want 95 percent. He wanted 100 percent of his judges. Another President once tried to pack the courts, and his name was Franklin Roosevelt, a great Democratic President. Do you know what? When Franklin Roosevelt was in office, there were 74 Democrats in the Senate. Franklin Roosevelt was annoyed. He wanted 100 percent. He got 60 percent in the election, a lot more than this President did. He had 74 Democratic Senators. And he wanted to pack the courts. He wanted to double the number of Supreme Court Justices, put his people in play, have the Democrats in the Senate rubberstamp and make sure that his New Deal would live forever more. Do you know what stopped him? Democratic Senators. They said: Mr. President, we admire you. We respect you. But we know it is wrong to pack the courts. It is not right. We want an independent judiciary. Let us not change the rules in the middle of the game. I was so hopeful that we would have some Republican Senators this time who had a sense of history, who understood better than I did when I was new here that the filibuster protects not only the minority but protects the American people. I want to explain to you, in my final moments, why it is so important that we keep the filibuster. In this deal, three judges are going to go through, are going to have a simple majority vote. One of them is Janice Rogers Brown. Now, I am not thrilled about this because I think her record is so far out of the mainstream that she will hurt the American people. But I do not want to just put out rhetoric. I want to show you Janice Rogers Brown and some of the times in which Janice Rogers Brown, as a judge on the California Supreme Court, stood alone in her dissents. So when you ask me: Senator Boxer, why is it that you filibustered Janice Rogers Brown--and, by the way, I support this deal. Even though she will only need 51 votes, I still support the deal. But I have to tell you, I am going to fight to deprive her of those 51 votes, if I can. She stood alone on a court of six Republicans and one Democrat. She is a Republican. She stood alone 31 times because the court was not rightwing enough for her. Let's look at some of the times Janice Rogers Brown stood alone, how way out of the mainstream to the extreme she is. She said a manager could use racial slurs against his Latino employees. Can you imagine a decision like that? It is OK to use racial slurs against Latino employees. Janice Rogers Brown said that in Aguilar v. Avis Rental Car. She is bad on first amendment rights. She argued that a message sent by an employee to coworkers criticizing a company's employment practices was not protected by the free speech first amendment, but she has been very protective of corporate speech. So she walks away from the individual but supports the right of corporate speech. If you want individual rights protected, this is not your person. Here is one: She protects companies, not shareholders. She is bad for rape victims. She was the only member of the court to vote to overturn the conviction of the rapist of a 17-year-old girl because she believed the victim gave mixed messages to the rapist. Now, I just want to say something here. Every one of us here would come to the defense of a 17-year-old rape victim. And on a court of six Republicans and one Democrat, only one person stood alone, stood by the rapist, Janice Rogers Brown. So when I say I do not want her to be promoted, you can see why. Janice Rogers Brown is bad for children and families. She was the only member of the court to oppose an effort to stop the sale of cigarettes to children. Now, I do not know how you all feel about this, but this is 2005, and we know what an addiction to cigarettes can be. We do not want our kids being able to purchase cigarettes in stores. Janice Rogers Brown stood alone in Stop Youth Addiction v. Lucky Stores. She stood alone on a court of six Republicans, one Democrat. She stood alone and would not protect our children from the sale of tobacco. Senior citizens: the only member of the court to find that a 60-year- old woman who was fired from her hospital job could not sue. This is what she said in this dissent, where she stood alone on a court of six Republicans and one Democrat. She said: Discrimination based on age does not mark its victims with a stigma of inferiority and second class citizenship. Really? Really? A 60-year-old woman was fired from her hospital job on age discrimination. State and Federal law prohibit age discrimination. Janice Rogers Brown stood alone and said there is no stigma. Someone fires you because you are old, and there is no stigma. But that is the least of it. Janice Rogers Brown----

Mrs. BOXER. I don't blame the Senator.

Mrs. BOXER. If the Senator heard me speak, I spoke quite a while about that. I said how wrong I was, how green I was, how I was frustrated with the Republicans blocking things. And I was dead wrong. I also said that what we tried to do is change the rules, which takes 67 votes. We did not go in the dead of night to try and get it done. So, yes, the Senator is right. I was dead wrong. Tough to admit that, but I have been very open about that since the beginning of the debate.

Mrs. BOXER. Thank you, I say to my friend from Alabama. Janice Rogers Brown has an attitude toward seniors which is extraordinary. She calls senior citizens cannibals. She says they are militant and they cannibalize their grandchildren by getting free stuff from the Government. I have to tell you, this woman is so far out of the mainstream, this is just a touch of the debate that is to hit the Senate floor. So when we stand up as Democrats and say no to Janice Rogers Brown, we have a reason. It is not about the Senate. It is not about partisanship. It is about the American people and the American family. Thank you, Mr. President. And I thank those Senators on both sides of the aisle for bringing us back from this precipice. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise to honor and share with my colleagues the memory of a very special woman, Alice Yarish of Marin County, who died May 9, 2005. She was 96 years old. Alice Yarish was an award-winning reporter and the Grande Dame of Marin journalism. I knew her during the 11 years she worked for the Pacific Sun, exposing political scandals and pushing for prison reform. During her years as a journalist in Marin, Alice demonstrated personal courage and a strong commitment to social justice. Alice is most well known for her relentless coverage of prison reform and she continued to fight for prisoner rights and prison reform until her retirement from the Pacific Sun in 1981. She went on to write her autobiography, ``Growing Old Disgracefully: Adventures of a Maverick Reporter.'' Alice was born in Goldfield, NV, where her father was a judge and her mother was one of the first women lawyers in the State. Her family moved to Redondo Beach, CA when she was still young. After graduating from high school, Redondo Beach is where Alice began her long and passionate career as a journalist. Alice worked for the Los Angeles Express when she interviewed First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt. Out enjoying a bicycle ride wearing shorts and a sweatshirt, Alice spotted Mrs. Roosevelt entering a beachfront hotel and ran after her to request an interview. She was granted the interview, which shocked and amazed her editors. After her stint at the Los Angeles Express, Alice left journalism to attend college and law school at the University of Southern California. Financial problems during the Depression led her to leave law school early, and she took a job as a social worker with the Emergency Relief Administration. She left this job when she married career military man, Peter Yarish, and moved with him to Hamilton Air Force Base in Novato. Alice raised four children and returned to journalism when she was 42 years old. She wrote for the Marin Independent Journal, the Novato Advance, the Santa Rosa Press Democrat and the San Francisco Examiner. But it was at the Pacific Sun where she really made a name for herself as a unique, outspoken woman journalist. Those who knew Alice viewed her as a sharp and witty reporter with a tremendous sense of curiosity. She took pride in uncovering injustice at every level of government. She stood out as a passionate watchdog with an incredible capacity for building friendships throughout the local community. Alice was deeply-respected by fellow journalists, editors and elected officials. She will be deeply missed. Alice is survived by her four children, Tim Yarish of Sausalito, Thomas Yarish of Mill Valley, Anthony Yarish of Cotati, and Robin Ell of Portland, OR. She is also survived by seven grandchildren and three great grandchildren.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I will rebut something that my friend from Virginia, Senator Allen, said about Janice Rogers Brown. He said she was in the mainstream. This is a woman who has served on the California Supreme Court that is made up of six Republicans and one Democrat. She has dissented a third of the time because her Republican friends on that court are not radical enough for her. Thirty-one times she stood alone on the side of a rapist, on the side of energy companies against the consumers, against women who were seeking to get contraception. It goes on and on--against workers. She said it was fine for Latinos to have racial slurs used against them in the workplace. This is a woman with an inspiring personal life story. But it is what she has done to other people's lives that makes her far out of the mainstream. I thank my colleague for yielding. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. President, my amendment begins the process of putting all trucks operating in the United States, including those from Mexico, on an equal footing for emission standards with American trucks. Beginning in 2007, all trucks, including foreign trucks, operating in the U.S., will have to certify that they are meeting the performance emission standards of the Clean Air Act--the type of standards that American trucks have been required to meet for years. This provision will comply with our trade laws and help improve our air quality by assuring that foreign trucks are meeting our emissions protections. I thank the Senators from Mississippi and Hawaii for working with me on this amendment and for agreeing to accept it. However, I believe it is only a start. I would have liked to include a provision requiring rebuilt engines to meet the standards in effect at the time the engines were manufactured. Such a provision would have covered more foreign trucks and ensured even cleaner air. I understand the complications with including such a provision now, and I hope we can address this in Conference.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, did my friend wish to make some comments on the floor at this time?

Mrs. BOXER. A second provision is the ``Elimination of Hazards Relating to Railway-Highway Crossings,'' which provides at least a $178 million set-aside from the Highway Safety Improvement Program each year for the elimination of hazards at railway-highway crossings. Does this include projects on grade separations?

Mrs. BOXER. As I understand it, the Freight Transportation Gateways program has a provision--the ``Freight Intermodal Connections on the National Highway System''--that would allow States to use a portion of their highway funds to build bridges and tunnels for grade separations. California would receive $73 million each year.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am pleased that this bill that we are considering has provisions to address this Nation's problems of grade crossings and the need for grade separations. According to the Federal Railroad Administration, ``grade crossings are the site of the greatest number of collisions and injuries'' in the railroad industry. In 2000, there were 3,502 incidents at grade crossings. This year in Glendale, CA, there was a tragic commuter train crash that resulted in 11 deaths and more than 200 injured. In addition, the large volume of freight train traffic from California's ports to the rest of the Nation is a public safety hazard in many communities in California where traffic--including emergency vehicles--is severely delayed at these grade crossings. In Riverside, CA, from January 2001 to January 2003, trains delayed ambulance and fire protection vehicles 88 times. This translates into more people possibly dying from health emergencies such as heart attacks, and larger and more deadly fires. If there is another terrorist attack, imagine what would happen if emergency first responders could not get across the tracks. That is why I am pleased that this bill includes my language to require the Federal Railroad Administration to make recommendations to Congress on ways to fix this. I am also pleased that this bill includes funding that States may use to separate railroad tracks and roads, and I am wondering whether the Senator from Missouri would enter into a colloquy on this matter.

Mrs. BOXER. Finally, there is a third provision that authorizes grants for rail line relocation projects. This would create a grant program that would allow States to receive funding to improve rail lines that pass through a municipality. This includes projects on grade separation. As a member of the Senate Commerce Committee, I am pleased that Chairman Stevens and Ranking Member Inouye included this provision. These provisions are a good start. I hope to continue to work with my colleague to ensure that Federal funding is available to help States and localities undertake grade separation projects so we can improve safety and relieve congestion where railroads and highways meet.

Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Senator. Reinforced concrete decking

Mrs. BOXER. If you could do that, if you could ask unanimous consent I be recognized first in morning business.

Mrs. BOXER. I appreciate your help on this issue, and I thank both Senators for agreeing to continue to address this issue. PM-10 and the CMAQ Apportionment Formula

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, but my statement will run 30 minutes. I ask that be amended at this point.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Here is one. I want us all to remember the Enron case, a case where counties and cities and individuals were ripped off and went into debt--in our State, billions of dollars--by Enron, Enron who said they would deliver electricity and then made believe there was a shortage and jacked up the price billions of dollars. People went bankrupt and counties went bankrupt and the State went in the hole $9 billion. She was the only member of the court to find that a county could not sue a utility company for illegal price fixing that had substantially increased the county's costs for natural gas. So here she is again hurting consumers, hurting local government, and standing alone in the process. Here she is on a right to a fair trial. This is interesting. The courts have ruled over and over that when a criminal defendant comes into court before there is a verdict of guilt, you can't bring that criminal defendant in in shackles and in a prison uniform because you put in the jury's mind that the person is guilty. So you give the chance to the person to come in dressed as a civilian, then you find out the details and you find them guilty or innocent. In this case, she was the only member of the court to find nothing improper about requiring a criminal defendant to wear a 50,000-volt stun belt while testifying, the only member of the court. That is how outside the mainstream she is. If we could put back up the 208-to-10 number while I give the rest of my remarks, that would be fine. What do we have here? We have a circumstance that 10 times out of 218, Democrats believed the President's choices were really harmful to the American people, would really be harmful to them, whether it is their minimum wage, whether it is their 40-hour workweek, whether it is the ability of all of us to protect our kids from cigarettes, whether it is to protect victims of violence, it goes on and on. You have seen just a handful of the cases. So when somebody says to you: Well, those Democrats, they are blocking everybody--and if you listen to my Republican colleagues, that is what you would think--no, we have blocked 10. We have approved 208. In reality, now the number is 5, but circumstances have changed. I will lean over backwards to be fair and say it is 10. That is 95 percent. In each case of these 10 you will find out why we have done it. It is because these nominees are so outside the mainstream that they will hurt the people we represent. Why is it important to say that a judge needs to have a 60-vote threshold to end extended debate? It is because it is a lifetime appointment. The President is supposed to work with the Senate before choosing a nominee, which he has not done, not on our side of the aisle. I tried hard with Mr. Gonzales when he was White House counsel. I met with him on numerous occasions, and he said: Senator Boxer, give me some names of Republicans. I gave him so many names of good Republicans for the Ninth Circuit. I said: Look, these people are mainstream Republicans. They will fly right through here. No, they couldn't be bothered with that. I know Senator Feinstein has done the same, given them the names of people who would be quite acceptable. Who do they send us? People such as Janice Rogers Brown, people who are so outside the mainstream that we don't deserve to be here if we don't raise the arguments. Now, what you are also going to hear is the Republicans have called this the nuclear option. They have renamed it the constitutional option. That is humorous--if you want to find humor in any of this. That is like saying that clock over there is a table. I suppose if I told you that often enough, maybe you would believe me that once upon a time that clock was a table. But the clock is a clock and the nuclear option is the nuclear option. It was named by the Republicans. But it is not popular out there because of the connotation, so they are trying to change it. The ``constitutional option'' is the reverse of the truth. In the Constitution, it says nothing about guaranteeing a vote. It says the Senate shall write its own rules. Well, the Senate wrote its own rules and the Senate said it takes 67 votes to change our rules. Our colleagues don't have 67 votes to change the rules, so they are trying to do this sneaky parliamentary move to change the rules. What a way to govern because you didn't get 100 percent of what you want; you got 95 percent. I don't feel sorry for any President who gets 95 percent of what he wants. I am telling you, Democratic or Republican Presidents have to work with the Senate and the House and they have to compromise. So it is very important to note that when you hear the Republicans saying all we want is the constitutional option, you say, where in the Constitution does it give you this right? Nowhere. Then they will say this: Everybody deserves an up-or-down vote. Everybody. I don't know how many times we have given Janice Rogers Brown a vote. We gave Janice Rogers Brown a vote here once, and Priscilla Owen got a vote four times. Yes, the vote required 60 as the threshold to end extended debate, but they got their vote. Now, when you go back to Bill Clinton, 61 times his nominees got stuck in committee; 61 of Bill Clinton's nominees never got to have a cloture vote. They never got a vote. They were pocket-filibustered in committee. We have never done that. Every single Bush nominee who has come to the floor has had their vote. I know of none who have not had a vote. They just didn't meet the 60-vote threshold. That is the second thing you are going to hear: All we are asking for is an up-or-down vote. They had that, but they had to meet the 60-vote threshold to end extended debate. Why? Because they are lifetime appointments, we are checking and balancing the power of the executive by saying don't send us people such as Janice Rogers Brown, who is so out of the mainstream. She sees a military uniform on every senior citizen and says senior citizens want to cannibalize their grandchildren. Excuse me? She says there is no private property left in this country. That is outside the mainstream to the extreme. If we Democrats have the courage of our convictions to say no 10 times, give us a little respect; don't try to change the rules in the middle of the night. Do what the Democrats did in the 1930s. Think how good you would feel if you stood up to the President of your own party and said: Mr. President, we will follow you anywhere; we think you are terrific, and we support you in Iraq and on privatizing Social Security, and we support you in your huge deficits; we support you in these trade agreements, we support you this way and that way; but we don't think packing the courts is a good idea. Therefore, we are going to join with the Democrats and say no to this plan. It is very dangerous. I want people to understand. The point of my discussion here today is to put a human face on these judges. This isn't about just numbers, although the numbers tell a heck of a story. The Republicans get 208 and not 10 and they are crying and doing this in a sneaky way, without getting 67 votes to do it. That alone is wrong. It is not playing fair, it is not the American way, it is not playing by the rules. The American people want to know it. If you want to fight with us, we will have a debate, but stick with the rules. Get your 67 votes so you can have the arrogance of power. Get your 67 votes so you can tread all over us. But don't do it in this sneak attack, challenging the Parliamentarian, and then having the Senator in the chair say, you know what, it is over; no more filibusters on judges. If you do that, you are hurting the American people. Some people say it is about the traditions of our country, the right to unlimited faith, freedom of speech, ``Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,'' I will stand on my feet, that is my God-given right for my State to do that, and that is all true. But for me personally, as a Senator from the largest State in the Union, with 36 million people, I want to protect them. I want to protect the 17-year-old who got raped and not have her come before Janice Rogers Brown and have her stand alone and rule against her. I want to protect the worker who wrote a little e-mail to another worker and said I don't think the boss is being so fair, what do you think? They said we had 2 weeks vacation and now they are counting that day off as one of those days and it is not right, and have to be before Janice Rogers Brown who says the corporation can write anything they want, but you are too lowly. I don't want to have the American people subjected to a judge such as Janice Rogers Brown, who said any city that helps a disabled elderly person get housing is wrong and is destroying private property. I don't want to have my kids in a circumstance where they have to see their grandmother called a ``cannibal.'' I don't want to have a judge who overturns Social Security, who overturns the minimum wage, who overturns the 40-hour workweek. The point is, I want to protect the people I represent. So if I don't stand up strongly against a judge such as her, I don't deserve to be here. The people of my State would be upset with me. The right I have in this magnificent Senate today is the right of the minority. We have 45 Democrats here and 55 Republicans. I am counting Jim Jeffords as a Democrat for the purpose of discussion because he votes with us. So it is 55-45. Jim Jeffords is an Independent, but he votes with us. By the way, in the recent polls, the Independent voters are for the filibuster; 54 percent are for the filibuster. I want to protect the people I represent, because Janice Rogers Brown has been nominated for the DC Circuit Court, meaning one step below the U.S. Supreme Court. So she is going from the California Supreme Court, where she has dissented in a third of the cases, in a court that has--and you may be interested in this--six Republicans and one Democrat. Janice Rogers Brown has dissented 31 times. This is how out of the mainstream she is. I think it is important to note. In the DC Circuit, there is a whole other area of the law that was protested--your right to breathe clean air, your right to drink clean water. This is important for us because environmental laws protect our health, and if we have someone in the court there who doesn't think Government has any right--and she obviously doesn't--to do anything because--what is it she said about Government? If you could put that chart up again. Whenever Government gets involved, this is what she predicts happens. We will show you the quote. Obviously, she doesn't think there is anyplace for Government because she says: ``Where government moves in''--I would say in a circumstance such as the Clean Air Act, where we tell folks you have to make sure the air is kept clean--``community retreats, civil society disintegrates, and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies . . . families are under siege.'' I don't know what country she is living in. She says: `` . . . unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption, the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit.'' What an optimist. Why are we promoting someone who has this negative view of America? Doesn't she know this is a government of, by, and for the people? That is what we are about. Do we make mistakes sometimes? Yes. Do we have to make sure we fix our laws so they work better? Yes. But to say whenever Government moves in, community retreats, I wonder what she thought of the highway bill we just passed. She probably thinks it is awful because we take the gas taxes and we build highways, and we build transit systems because we think it is important for economic growth. But she says when Government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates, and the result is families are under siege and there is war in the streets. So, yes, I am here to say I did stand up against Janice Rogers Brown, and whether she has to meet a 60-vote threshold, which she has been unable to get, or a 51-vote threshold, I will be fighting against this nominee because she is way out of the mainstream. She walked away from judges in her own political party and stood alone 31 times. That is why we have said to the President: Why don't you talk to us about these nominees? We could have told you this one would have trouble. We would have given you the names of some fine conservative Republicans. But not someone who has this wonderful life story, but has a view of America that is amazing. Here is what she once said in a speech: Most of us no longer find slavery abhorrent. We embrace it. We demand more. Big Government is not just the opiate of the masses; it is the opiate. Her point is we are slaves to our Government. Well, again, I don't know what country she is living in. We are not slaves to our Government. We run the Government. We get to vote the people we want in and we get to vote them out. If we don't like what they do, we will let them know. She is out of step, calling senior citizens militant, saying they are taking all of the goodies and free stuff. She doesn't like the minimum wage, doesn't like the 40-hour workweek, doesn't like senior citizens. She never protected women. She doesn't protect our children. She doesn't protect our consumers. She doesn't protect our workers. Why do we want someone such as that to get a promotion? Therefore, the Democrats have said to the President, through our voice in the Senate: Send us someone else and we will be delighted to work with you. We have worked with you 208 times, Mr. President, and 10 times we said no. We said you are out of the mainstream, and the response of a 95- percent success record by the Republicans--and a few are not going along with it, and bless them for that--is: We will take away your right, Democrats, to stand up for the things you think are important. We will take away your rights by changing the rules in the middle of the game, by skirting a 67-vote requirement for changing the rules. We will do it. There is politics being played. The majority leader talked about this in a speech in a political way, which was wrong. He has not agreed to a compromise. Senator Reid has offered several. The fact is, people have to know what is at stake. I hope everyone within the sound of my voice will know the reason why Democrats have stood so firmly against the nomination of Janice Rogers Brown. It is because we care about the people we represent, and we care about mainstream judges, and we do not want to see such a radical individual get this position and begin to whittle away at the rights our people have won, at the fairness our people have won. This is very important. This vote is going to change the Senate forever. But more than that, it will impact the lives of the people. Changing the Senate, changing tradition, changing the role of the minority to make a difference, to be heard, freedom of speech--these are all important. But at the end of the day, it is about our kids, our grandkids, our seniors, our families, our workers, the air we breathe and the water we drink, and this is all connected to the judges. This is not disconnected. This is the brilliance of our Founders who said the judicial branch, the judges, shall make sure that everything we do in the legislative branch and in the executive branch is constitutional, is right, is reasoned. If we have people on the bench who believe that anything we do disintegrates our family; that anything we do, such as the highway bill, for example, turns into an expropriation of property and the rapid rise of corruption and the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit--this belongs somewhere else, not in the courts. Mr. President, I thank you for your patience. I thank my staff who has done an extraordinary job for me in analyzing these decisions. This is not easy to do because you have to go line by line. I know the Presiding Officer knows these cases can be very long and confusing. My staff are attorneys. They are also very smart attorneys, and they were able to get to the point of these cases and bring home this message to people that when we fight against 10 judges out of 218, it is for a reason. It is not because we want to be difficult. It is because we believe when the Constitution says the Senate has the right to advise and consent on judges, it does not mean when the President feels like it. It does not mean between the hours of 11 and 1 on Wednesday. It means every time he sends a nomination to us, he should have, in fact, sought the advice and consent of the Senate. We have a big debate coming up tomorrow. I just wanted to give a little reality check so people understand for what we have been fighting. I thank the Chair. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I have asked for this time so I could talk about the issue that is really hanging over the head of the Senate, as Senator Baucus said when he gave his support to the highway and transit bill: What we can do when we work together. What we can do when we set aside the partisanship. What we can do when we work for our people, rather than make up a phony crisis about the courts and threaten to change more than 200 years of tradition and threaten a nuclear option-- which was named by the Republicans, by the way, when they thought about it because it is so vicious, it hurts so hard, it has such fallout that it will change the very nature of the Senate. But more importantly, it will change the way we now can protect the people of the United States of America. This is a very simple chart. It shows the numbers 208 to 10; 208 represents the number of judges President Bush has been able to get voted into office as a result of actions of this Congress since he got into power. Two hundred eight of his judges have gone through. This Senate has stopped 10, 10 of his nominees. Actually, some of my colleagues remind me now it is really only five because some of them are no longer up for judgeships or we have relented on a couple of them, but I am going to be fair to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and paint the worst possible picture in terms of the number we have stopped--10. This is a 95-percent success rate. I ask the people of this country to think about what it would mean in their lives if they got 95 percent of what they wanted. If their child came home on a regular basis with 95 percent from school? That is an A+. If their spouse said, ``Honey, I agree with you,'' 95 percent of the time and you got your way 95 percent of the time, you would be smiling. When you went to work and you had a pretty tough boss, and your boss called you into the office and he said, ``You know, you are a fine worker, Barbara. You are a great worker. As a matter of fact, I have looked over your work, and I have agreed with you 95 percent of the time,'' I think that is the moment I would ask for a raise. If you get what you want 95 percent of the time, you should have a broad smile on your face. You should feel good about yourself. You should feel great about yourself. But you know what, if you wanted 100 percent all the time, if you never wanted to give 1 inch of space, if you demanded that your child get 100 percent every time, you would not be happy. I call it the arrogance of power. What we are seeing in the United States of America is an arrogance of power. My colleagues--and particularly the White House--are not happy getting 208 of their judges but not getting 10 of their judges; they are not happy with 95 percent results. What do they do? They say: We want to change the rules of the Senate. All right, what are the rules of the Senate? The rules of the Senate say on a nomination as important as a judge, which is very key, following the Constitution, which says a President must take the advice and get the consent of the Senate, there can be extended debate on that judge. To stop that extended debate, it requires not 51 votes; it is 60 votes. That is how we have operated for a very long time. By the way, it is important to note, it was even harder to get a nomination through. For a while, it was 67 votes. Before that, there was endless debate. You could never stop debate, ever. We have eased that rule. We believe it is important for a lifetime appointment to the courts-- and these are very important positions. They are paid a lot of money. They get a great retirement, not like United Airlines, they will get their retirement. We believe they ought to be terrific--mainstream, at least. And to stop extended debate, they have to pass a little bit of a higher threshold: 60 votes. Some of these nominees are so outside the mainstream they cannot get 60 votes. So the Republicans said: We will just change the rules. They looked in their little rule book, and they found it takes 67 votes to change the rules of the Senate, and they said: My goodness, we do not have that. Maybe we have 51 with the Vice President voting with us--he votes on a tie vote--but we do not have 67 votes. So let's go about it in a way that no one would ever expect. We will raise what we call a point of order, have a ruling of the Chair, and the Chair will rule--and it will be Dick Cheney--that the Senate can no longer filibuster judges. Then we will have a little disagreement over that. They are getting 51 votes, they think. Maybe not. We do not know. That is the nuclear option. A lot of my colleagues on the Republican side are nervous about it, and they will wind up, if they get 51 votes, changing the rules of the Senate without the 67 votes. Imagine what would happen at a baseball game if in the middle of the game someone said there is no such thing as a home run, or it is an out if the ball bounces first and you throw the person out at first base. People would go nuts. You do not change the rules in the middle of the game. That is not the American way. And you do not do it in a backdoor effort. I have voted to change the rules, but I do not try a sneaky way. I said you have to get 67 votes to do it. If you do not get the 67 votes, the rules are the same. I take my time on this because it is important the American people understand what the Republican leadership is trying to do. They tried to change the rules in the House because they did not want to investigate Tom DeLay, who is the leader over there. They changed the rules. It was so shocking, they backtracked after months of the American people saying: That is not the American way. The people of the United States of America are saying it today. They are saying it by 60 to 70 percent of the vote: Do not change the way the Senate has done its business. Anyone who saw the movie ``Mr. Smith Goes to Washington'' knows that Jimmy Smith in that film was able to stand on his feet and be heard for a righteous and just cause. A little bit later, I will show an example of a judge we stopped and why it was important to stop her. Let the American people and my colleagues understand. Here is what is important. This should not be about political parties, folks. When Franklin Delano Roosevelt was President--as we all know, a Democrat, considered one of the greatest Presidents ever--he made a huge mistake in his Presidency. He wanted to pack the Supreme Court. He did not like their decisions. At the time, the Democrat party had 74 seats in the Senate. They could have done it in a heartbeat. All they needed was just a few to peel off, they had it. What did they do? Democrats in those days, colleagues, stood up to the most popular President in history. He had gotten more than 60 percent of the vote. They said: Mr. President, we think you are great, but we are not going to pack the courts just because you feel they are not upholding all of your New Deal. It is not fair. We need a check and balance. I know young people watching or listening to this debate understand what we are talking about. The checks and balances built into our Constitution--the courts check the legislature and the courts check the executive branch. What my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, save a few, want to do is take away that check and balance, have one party rule. And, oh my goodness, they did not get enough of what they want--208 to 10--and they are throwing a fit and trying to change the rules of the Senate. That is wrong and doing it in a way that is absolutely contrary to what we say has to be done to change the rules, which is 67 votes. Now, the next thing they will say is there have never been any judge filibusters until the Democrats. We have never done that, say the Republicans, we are so good we have never done it. Let me tell the truth, the facts. Who started the filibuster in recent times? The Republicans. In 1968, Abe Fortas, to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court--Democrats' choice--he did not get the required two-thirds at that time. They need 67 votes of Members supporting Abe Fortas. Republicans started it. Then we had a filibuster for a while against William Rehnquist, but it was dropped; Stephen Breyer to be judge on the First Circuit Court of Appeals in 1980; Harvie Wilkinson to be judge on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in 1984; in 1986, Sydney Fitzwater to be a judge; in 1992, Edward Earl Carnes; in 1994, Lee Sarokin; and in 1999, Brian Theodore Stewart. In 2000, two Californians were filibustered by my Republican friends: Richard Paez and Marsha Berzon. When we hear the Republicans say, we have not been, ever, for a filibuster, just say, you are making it up. They are making it up. Here they admit to a filibuster. Here is Bob Smith, Republican Senator, March 7, 2000: . . . it is no secret that I have been the person who has filibustered these two nominations, Judge Berzon and Judge Paez. So when the Republicans say there has never been a Republican filibuster, they are making it up. Of course there has been. By the way, that was their right. Orrin Hatch: Indeed, I must confess to being somewhat baffled that, after a filibuster is cut off by cloture, the Senate could still delay a final vote on the nomination. Senator Orrin Hatch at that time, I believe, was the chairman of the committee. Again, Senator Bob Smith: So don't tell me we haven't filibustered judges and that we don't have the right to filibuster judges on the floor of the Senate. Of course we do. That is our constitutional role. Here we have a Republican Senator leading a filibuster against two of President Clinton's nominees and saying the filibuster is the constitutional role, and now we have Republicans saying: We have never, ever been involved in a filibuster. I will talk about one of the nominees the Democrats have filibustered. I need to explain to my colleagues, and hopefully to others, how out of the mainstream some of these folks are who George Bush has nominated. Remember, we stopped 10. This is one of the 10. Janice Rogers Brown--way outside of the mainstream to the extreme. This is one of her comments: Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates, and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: Families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. This is what she thinks of our great Nation because we have a Government that does build the roads, that does help people out when they are in a bad situation, that may come in and say, yes, it is not a good idea to sell cigarettes to a kid who is 13. This is terrible. This is awful. The ``precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption.'' The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity . . . A virtue. Now, I don't know about you, but I think the minimum wage is a part of America. Colleagues could decide they do not want to raise it for a couple of years. Right now, sadly, it hasn't been raised for a very long time, but I think most Americans think we are protected by the minimum wage. This is what she said about the minimum wage, Janice Rogers Brown. I take a minute to say Janice Rogers Brown has served in the California Supreme Court since 1996. Her life story is amazing. It is remarkable. What I don't like is what she is doing to other people's lives. Her story is amazing, but for whatever reason, she is hurting the people of this country, particularly, right now, in my State. Of course, the President wants to move her over to Washington, DC, court. She calls Supreme Court decisions upholding protections like the minimum wage and the 40-hour workweek ``the triumph of our own socialist revolution.'' I don't know or understand how anybody could think the 40-hour workweek or the minimum wage is socialism. She obviously does. She obviously would overturn it. She accuses senior citizens of--and I hope everyone over the age of 55 will listen to what Janice Rogers Browns thinks of people over 55-- she accuses senior citizens of ``blithely cannibalizing their grandchildren because they have a right to get as much free stuff'' as the political system permits them to extract. Free stuff? Is she talking about Social Security? That is not free. People pay into Social Security, and they deserve to get their monthly check. Free stuff. Senior citizens ``blithely cannibalize their grandchildren.'' I resent those comments as a grandmother. I would walk off a bridge for my grandson--and he knows it. I resent her painting of senior citizens. That is why we held her up. That is why she is not sitting on the court today. Now, she may get there if my colleagues have their way. Let them explain why she would rule to overturn the minimum wage and the 40-hour workweek and overturn Social Security. It will be on their backs. We have stopped this woman from going further because of her decisions. She declares: Big government is . . . The drug of choice for multinational corporations and single moms, for . . . rugged Midwestern farmers and militants senior citizens. She is back to that again. What is she afraid of--that some senior citizen will attack her? The crime rate among senior citizens is pretty low. Militant senior citizens? Give me a break. And we get accused of holding up decent people? This goes on. I will go on with the story of Janice Rogers Brown--way outside the mainstream to the extreme. She argued a law that provided housing assistance to displaced elderly, disabled, and low-income people was unconstitutional. Her dissent said, because the city of San Francisco had a law that helped these disabled, elderly people, she said that ``private property . . . is now entirely extinct in San Francisco.'' What world does she live in? Has she tried to buy a house in San Francisco? It is the hottest real estate market in the country. But she says private property is entirely extinct. Let her go try to find some private property to buy in San Francisco. This woman is living on another planet, and we were right to stop her from getting on the bench. Whether it takes 60 votes or 51 votes to stop her, we are going to try to stop her. Let's go on with more of her record. How about this? She said that a manager could use racial slurs against his Latino employees. Now, I say to every human being out there: What do we know about the workplace? We know people should feel OK about themselves in the workplace, that we work better together when we respect each other. Janice Rogers Brown said a manager could use racial slurs against his Latino employees-- extreme in the main. She argued that a message sent by an employee to coworkers criticizing a company's employment practices was not protected by the first amendment. In other words, you can't use your e-mail to write anything about your employer to other employees, although she said the corporations can say whatever they want any time of the day. You know now why we have stopped Janice Rogers Brown. But we have more reasons, if you are not convinced. Even when it comes to protecting shareholders, she is not fair. Anyone who owns a share of stock, listen to this one. She argued that a company could not be held liable for stock fraud by its employees who were offered a stock purchase plan since the stock was traded between third parties on the open market. So she comes out against the shareholders and protecting the companies. Here is the amazing thing. Let me reiterate about Janice Rogers Brown. She serves on the California Supreme Court. There are six Republicans on the court--she is a Republican--and one Democrat. She dissented more than a third of the time. You would think she would have been happy to be with colleagues of her own party. She stood alone 31 times. And when you hear these cases, you will be amazed at where she stood. In other words, she went against five Republicans and one Democrat 31 times, and stood alone. Let's check those cases out. How about this one: Rape victims; she was the only member of the court to vote to overturn the conviction of a rapist of a 17-year-old girl because she believed the victim gave mixed messages to the rapist. She stood alone on the side of a rapist, alone as a woman on a court that has six Republicans and one Democrat. Here is another case where she voted alone, the only member of the court to oppose an effort to stop the sale of cigarettes to children. It was a case where the supermarkets didn't want to be responsible. If somebody came up, maybe 13, maybe 12, maybe 11, maybe 14, I want a pack of cigarettes, she ruled against an effort to stop the sale of cigarettes to children. What planet is she living on now? If it was in the 1800s and we didn't know about cigarettes and what they do to you is one thing. But now is another thing. She stood alone. I talked about senior citizens. I told you she is afraid of militant senior citizens. That is what she calls them. I told you that she said they cannibalize their grandchildren. Well, she was the only member of the court to find that a 60-year-old woman who was fired from her hospital job could not sue. This is the amazing thing she said, as she stood alone in this decision. A 60-year-old woman was fired from her hospital job. She said she has no right to sue based on age discrimination. This is her comment: [D]iscrimination based on age does not mark its victims with a stigma of inferiority and second class citizenship. Really? How do you think you would feel if you were fired because you were too old and suddenly that stigma was attached to you and you lost your livelihood because maybe you had to work at age 60, as you waited for your Social Security check, which is a whole other issue. We hope we win that battle, too. But let me tell you, it makes it hard to win the battle of Social Security if you have on the court someone who calls senior citizens militant. It is going to be tough. That is why we have held her up. By the way, her position in this case is contrary to both State and Federal law. This is one of the people we have stopped. Just think about what we have been trying to protect the American people from. How about this? This is a woman who not only voted with a rapist against a 17-year-old girl, she was the only member of the court who voted to strike down a State antidiscrimination law that provided a contraceptive drug benefit to women. She was the only one. The State of California had required an equal health benefit to women and said: Your insurance will cover contraception because--guess what they decided. They decided it was better to avoid abortion, to cut down abortion, to make abortion rare. So they said they would give a benefit of contraception. She stood alone and tried to strike that down. Imagine. She has been bad for workers. She was the only member of the court who voted to bar an employee from suing for sexual harassment because she signed a standard worker's compensation release form. Now, all of you probably know what that means. If you go for a job, you are usually covered by workman's compensation. But this woman had signed a waiver and said: I won't file a worker's comp claim. She didn't file a worker's comp claim, but she did file a sexual harassment claim because she was being sexually harassed. Every member of the court stood with the woman who was sexually harassed but Janice Rogers Brown. Six Republicans, one Democrat, and she stood alone again against a worker who was facing sexual harassment. The whole rest of the court agreed with the worker. She was the only member of the court to find that a disabled worker who was the victim of employment discrimination did not have the right to raise past instances of discrimination that occurred. In other words, there was a disabled worker who filed a lawsuit, had a big story to tell about the past. She was the only judge to say: I don't agree with the worker; I agree with the company. Here is another one. Janice Rogers Brown, bad on discrimination, the only member of the court to find that a State fair housing commission could not award certain damages to housing discrimination victims. She stood alone again. Domestic violence: The Republicans want to put on the court a woman who stood alone 31 times against her fellow Republicans in cases like this--the only member of the court to find that a jury should not hear expert testimony in a domestic violence case about battered women's syndrome. We all know about battered women's syndrome, where a woman is beaten senseless by a boyfriend--in this case, probably a spouse--and later minimizes what he did to her. And the law in our State says it is valid evidence. If she reached out and she did something to prosecute this attacker, an explanation about battered women's syndrome will help her. She was the only one who stood alone and said: I don't want to hear any expert testimony on this. She stood alone. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 30 minutes.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, before my colleague, Senator Inhofe, leaves the floor, I truly wish to say to him, as my chairman, how much I have enjoyed working with him on the Environment and Public Works Committee. What an important bill we have done, all of us together, across party lines. I am very hopeful we can see this bill move forward so the American people can move forward with their lives. They need the highways. They need the transit. They need the jobs this bill promises. I wished to thank him before he left the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent Patty Skuster, a fellow in my office, be granted the privilege of the floor for the remainder of the proceedings.