Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I send the amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mrs. BOXER. I will wrap up right now by saying, we need to look inside our hearts. We represent American children. They need our help. These programs work. These programs deserve to be fully funded because the President and the Congress passed the No Child Left Behind Act. To freeze these programs for another year makes 3 years in a row. How can I tell my kids that the kids in Iraq are more important than them? I am going to do my part to help the kids in Iraq; I am doing my part. I will do my part to help the kids in Afghanistan; I am doing my part. But I will not walk away from doing my part for the children in California and the children all across this country. I urge a ``yea'' vote on this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I ask a minute of my colleagues' time to call attention to this vote we just cast because I think sometimes we go through the motions and we do not connect the dollar amounts to the children. We have just deprived 300,000 children in every one of our States of afterschool care, after being told by law enforcement that it helps solve crime problems, after being told by parents that it makes their children happy, after learning from study after study that the kids do better. I think it is very sad, indeed, for the children of America to know they will not have this afterschool opportunity that will keep them on the right track when we are giving billions of dollars to the children of Iraq and billions of dollars to the children of Afghanistan. Lord knows, I want to help them, too. But how about the children of America who were promised in No Child Left Behind that they would get afterschool care? This program has been flat-lined for 3 years in a row. It is a sad day, and I hope we will reverse ourselves at a future date.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I join my colleagues in paying tribute to former Senator Vance Hartke of Indiana, who passed away this summer. Throughout his three terms in the Senate, Vance Hartke was known for his tremendous energy, vision, and courage. First elected to the Senate as part of the great Democratic class of 1958, Vance Hartke campaigned with legendary vigor and vim, visiting every county and town in Indiana and stopping to talk and listen to everyone who would stand still. He worked hard to benefit his home State, using his chairmanship of the Commerce Transportation Subcommittee to bring key road and rail projects to the Hoosier State. Senator Hartke helped enact landmark legislation, including the progressive programs that made up President Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society. Despite fierce opposition, he helped steer Medicare through Congress. He was the Senate's acknowledged champion of higher education and adult education, and he also helped lead the efforts to expand veterans benefits and establish Federal student loan programs. In the mid-1960s, Senator Hartke put his political future on the line when he became one of the first Senators to oppose the war in Vietnam. In following his conscience, he parted ways with most of his constituents and his good friend President Johnson, but he stuck to his principles and survived a bruising reelection campaign in 1970. Though Senator Hartke lost his Senate seat in 1976, he became a good friend and adviser to the man who defeated him, Senator Richard Lugar, and he never lost his passion for politics or his home State. Senator Vance Hartke served the people of Indiana and the U.S. Senate with great distinction. I am honored to add my voice to the chorus of praise for his life's work and legacy.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mrs. BOXER. I would like to ask a question of my colleague. Here we are in the week of September 11. We are going to memorialize the heroes of September 11. The last memory we all have of our President going down to Ground Zero and placing his arms around the shoulders of these brave people--and we just found out they were in serious danger due to what was happening in terms of the quality of the air. We have found that it was not what it was said to be. Everything that I am reading and the mail I am getting indicates that many of our firefighters, emergency workers, and nurses are workers who rely upon overtime pay in order to keep their families together. I have the most emotional letters which I have put in the Record on this point. Does my friend not see the irony in the fact that we are approaching the September 11 date and honoring the heroes of that day and they are the ones who are going to be hurt by this terrible ruling of the administration unless we prevail and have a vote to overturn it?

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I would hope your wish comes true, but I understand we received a message that he would veto this bill with this in it. Let's hope he knows that letter came over here because, frankly, if he doesn't know it, he is not doing his job. So I have to assume he knows it. That is my own view, not that I want to ruin your day.

Mrs. BOXER. Will my friend yield?

Mrs. BOXER. Maybe he will take back that letter he sent us.

Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Senator so much. I have been trying to thank the Senator for a couple of days now, but it has been hard to get a moment. I am so glad I have this moment to thank him so much for giving us an opportunity here in the Senate to stand up for working families. I want to read just one letter I received from a woman in my State and ask the Senator to comment because his point is so right. This Bush administration rule, which would take away the pay from hard-working people, is an attack on America's families. What is so interesting to me is, when I think back after 9/11 and the President going to Ground Zero and standing with his arms around firefighters and saying, ``These are the heroes,'' the firefighters are the ones who are going to be hurt by this change. The safety workers are going to be hurt. I want to read a letter, and I want to ask you to please comment. Celine Krimston, the wife of a firefighter from La Mesa, wrote: We are a family of four. Our children are four months and five years of age. I work full time outside of the home to make ends meet for our family. My husband's firefighter income is not enough to support a family of four, yet too high to receive any type of subsidy. Without the overtime pay we would actually be deemed low income and qualify for subsidized childcare. Our nation should be ashamed! Please support America's working families by voting against the Bush administration's proposal to cut overtime. So all I want to do today, in this brief interlude, if you will, is to thank you. These working people--who barely have time for their kids, who are struggling to make ends meet, to put food on the table, to pay the rent or the mortgage, to give their family a modicum of security--are under attack by this Bush rule. I want you to comment on this, if this does not reflect the comments you are hearing as our leader on this issue? Did it not strike you--let's just use the word in an ironic way--when President Bush stood, on Labor Day, with a group of working people and talked about how much he understood that they were going through hard times and how important it was for them to get jobs? By the way, we have lost more jobs now than ever in history since Herbert Hoover, since the Great Depression. But while he is doing this missionary work and trying to tell working people how he is going to get them jobs, he is also going behind their back and cutting their pay with this rule. I wonder if my friend would comment on those two issues: The irony of this hitting our firefighters, our first responders, and also the fact that at a Labor Day event the President was saying how he understands working people, and then putting this provision in, which is such a disaster for our people.

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

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, the Reid-Bingaman amendment would provide an additional $210 million for Hispanic education. I am pleased to support it. Since 1990, the number of school age Hispanic children has grown by 61 percent. This means that one out of every six children who attends public school is Hispanic. Yet, only about 60 percent of them graduate from high school. Hispanics over the age of 16 are more than twice as likely to drop out of school than African-American students and four times more likely to drop out of school than white students. In the Nation's l17 largest Hispanic-serving school districts, Hispanics lag behind white students in reading achievement by an average of 30 points and math achievement by an average of 27 points. And according to the 2000 census, only 8.5 percent of Hispanics between the ages of 25 and 34 had earned a bachelor's degree. These statistics are troubling, and we need to address them. After all, education gives individuals the tools that they need to succeed. But education programs are underfunded, and the bill before us cuts $21 million from bilingual education, $11 million from dropout prevention programs, $10 million from high school migrant education, and $15 million from college migrant education. The Reid-Bingaman amendment would reverse these proposed cuts and would increase funding for English instruction for non-native speakers, dropout prevention, and migrant education. I urge my colleagues to vote for this very essential and worthwhile amendment.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I wish to reflect on the proud history of Hollywood High School, which is celebrating its centennial on September 13. In some ways, Hollywood High School lives up to its name. Judy Garland, Mickey Rooney, and Lana Turner were on the school's roster. Carol Burnett was the editor of the school paper. And scores of other celebrities received their education at Hollywood High. Hollywood High has certainly grown significantly from its humble beginnings. It opened in 1903 on the second floor of a former bakery located on Highland Avenue. It had an enrollment of 56 students, and only three teachers were on the payroll. Two years later, construction on a Roman- temple style building was underway at the intersection of Sunset Boulevard and Highland Avenue, and this is where the school still stands today. Over the years, Hollywood High's student population grew to include not only Hollywood celebrities, but also leaders in American government, and in many other fields. Former Secretary of State Warren Christopher graduated from Hollywood High, as did Judge John Aiso, the first Nisei appointed to the federal bench. Hollywood High School provides a myriad of services to students interested in the performing arts. In partnership with Paramount Studios, it administers the New Media Academy. Hollywood High also has a winning debate team, award-winning dance and drill teams, and a Performing Arts Magnet Center. Mr. President, it is clear that Hollywood High has enjoyed a colorful and successful history, and I congratulate the school, staff and students on this special occasion.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I wish to reflect on the proud history of Orange High School, which is celebrating its centennial this year. This is a particularly special moment because the Orange Unified School District is also celebrating its 50th anniversary this year. Earlier this summer, more than 220 friends and alumni gathered at an event called ``From Kibby to French'' in honor of the district's first superintendent, Harold Kibby, and current superintendent, Bob French. The high school and district have come a long way since its humble beginnings many years ago. Orange High School opened in the ``Dobner Building'' on September 21, 1903 as Orange County's fourth high school. In its first year, it had an enrollment of 81 students. A few years later, it moved from the ``Dobner Building'' to a building at Palm Avenue and Glassell Street, which is now Chapman University's Wilkinson Hall. It was not until 1953 that it moved to its current site on Shaffer Street. As those close to Orange High School celebrate this special occasion, they can reflect on the school's progress and historical milestones. The school newspaper, ``The Reflector,'' celebrated its first issue in 1916. The following year, the Class of 1917 painted a large ``O'' on a local hillside, which started a well-known tradition lasting through the 1960s. 1928 marked the beginning of another famous school practice, the ``Dutch/Irish Days,'' with a basketball game played between graduates of St. John's Lutheran School, the ``Dutch,'' and Orange Intermediate School, the ``Irish.'' The game was last played in 1965. In 1970, Orange High opened a stadium in honor of 1912 Olympic champion and class of 1911 alumnus, Fred Kelly. On the school's 75th anniversary in 1978, a museum opened in the Townsend Room. I would like to conclude my remarks by describing a tradition some alumni from the Class of 1943 started about 15 years ago. They started to meet for breakfast once a month at Watson's Drug and Soda Fountain, a place near the ``Dobner Building.'' David Hart, an Orange High alumnus, was quoted in the Orange County Register on the centennial as saying, simply, ``We like each other . . . I have breakfast with kids I went to kindergarten with . . . Other schools don't have that.'' This unique feeling of closeness and friendship clearly shows the meaning of Orange High School its alumni. I congratulate both Orange High School and Orange High School District on this important milestone, and wish them many more years of success.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, history books written about California always comment on the natural beauty of the State because our natural treasures have always been one of the things that makes California unique. But that beauty must not be taken for granted. That is why I am introducing the California Wild Heritage Act of 2003 in an effort to pass the first statewide wilderness bill for California since 1984. I introduced a similar bill last year and was thrilled that the 107th Congress passed legislation to designate 56,000 acres of my bill as wilderness within the Los Padres National Forest. It was a wonderful first step. The California Wild Heritage Act of 2003 represents the next step. This legislation will protect more than 2.5 million acres of public lands in 81 different areas, as well as the free-flowing portions of 22 rivers. Every acre of wild land is a treasure. But the areas protected in this bill are some of California's most precious, including: the old growth redwood forests near the Trinity Alps in Trinity and Humboldt Counties; the pristine coastline in the King Range in Humboldt and Mendocino Counties; the Nation's sixth highest waterfall, Feather Falls, in Butte County; the ancient Bristlecone Pines in the White Mountains in Inyo and Mono Counties; and the oak woodlands in the San Diego River area. The bill protects these treasures by designating these public lands as ``wilderness'' and by naming 22 rivers--including the Clavey in Tuolumne County and the Owens in Mono County--as ``wild and scenic'' rivers. These designations mean no new logging, no new dams, no new construction, no new mining, no new drilling, and no motorized vehicles. Mining, logging and grazing activities that are currently permitted would be allowed to continue. Protection of the areas in this bill is necessary to ensure that these precious places will be there for future generations. Because much of our state's drinking water supply is made up of watersheds in our national forests, this bill also helps ensure California has a safe, reliable supply of clean drinking water. This bill would also mean that the hundreds of plant and animal species that make their homes in these areas will continue to have a safe haven. Endangered and threatened species whose habitats will be protected by this bill include the bald eagle, Sierra Nevada Red Fox, and spring run chinook salmon, among others. In short, this bill preserves, prevents, and protects. It preserves our most important lands, it prevents pollution, and it protects our most endangered wildlife. That is why this bill is so widely supported. Thousands of diverse organizations, businesses, and others see the importance of this legislation and have given it their support. Additionally, over 400 local elected officials have voiced support for the protection of their local areas. Despite the tremendous support for this bill, it is not without opponents. They will say this bill is too large and goes too far. Yet this bill is similar in size to other statewide wilderness bills that have already passed Congress. The 1984 California Wilderness Act protected approximately 2 million acres and 83 miles of the Tuolumne River. A more recent wilderness bill, the California Desert Protection Act, protected approximately 6 million acres of desert areas. It is important to note that only 13 percent of California is currently protected as wilderness. This bill would raise that amount to 15 percent. During the last 20 years, 675,000 acres of unprotected wilderness--approximately the size of Yosemite National Park--lost their wilderness character due to activities such as logging and mining. As our population increases, and California becomes home to almost 50 million people, these development pressures are only getting worse. If we fail to act now, there simply will not be any wild lands or wild rivers left to protect. The other big question that has been raised is whether this bill will limit public access to these areas. I do not believe this will be the case. While wilderness designation means the wilderness areas are closed to mountain bikers, they remain open to a myriad of recreational activities, including horseback riding, fishing, hiking, backpacking, rock climbing, cross country skiing, and canoeing. Mountain bikers and motorized vehicles have 100,000 miles of roads and trails in California that are not touched in my bill. Furthermore, numerous economic studies suggest wilderness areas are a big draw that attract outdoor recreation visitors, and tourism dollars, to areas that have received this special designation. One important change has been made to the legislation after concerns were raised about wildfire prevention and control near at-risk communities. The bill I am introducing today protects communities by allowing Federal, local and State agencies to perform fire and emergency response activities in wilderness areas. I worked extensively with the California Department of Forestry on this legislation, and they have expressed their support for the language in the bill. Those of us who live in California have a very special responsibility to protect our natural heritage. Past generations have done it. They have left us with the wonderful and amazing gifts of Yosemite, Big Sur and Joshua Tree. These are places that Californians cannot imagine living without. Now it is our turn to protect this legacy for future generations--for our children's children, and their children. This bill is the place to start and the time to start is now.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, history books written about California always comment on the natural beauty of the State because our natural treasures have always been one of the things that makes California unique. But that beauty must not be taken for granted. That is why I am introducing the California Wild Heritage Act of 2003 in an effort to pass the first statewide wilderness bill for California since 1984. I introduced a similar bill last year and was thrilled that the 107th Congress passed legislation to designate 56,000 acres of my bill as wilderness within the Los Padres National Forest. It was a wonderful first step. The California Wild Heritage Act of 2003 represents the next step. This legislation will protect more than 2.5 million acres of public lands in 81 different areas, as well as the free-flowing portions of 22 rivers. Every acre of wild land is a treasure. But the areas protected in this bill are some of California's most precious, including: the old growth redwood forests near the Trinity Alps in Trinity and Humboldt Counties; the pristine coastline in the King Range in Humboldt and Mendocino Counties; the Nation's sixth highest waterfall, Feather Falls, in Butte County; the ancient Bristlecone Pines in the White Mountains in Inyo and Mono Counties; and the oak woodlands in the San Diego River area. The bill protects these treasures by designating these public lands as ``wilderness'' and by naming 22 rivers--including the Clavey in Tuolumne County and the Owens in Mono County--as ``wild and scenic'' rivers. These designations mean no new logging, no new dams, no new construction, no new mining, no new drilling, and no motorized vehicles. Mining, logging and grazing activities that are currently permitted would be allowed to continue. Protection of the areas in this bill is necessary to ensure that these precious places will be there for future generations. Because much of our state's drinking water supply is made up of watersheds in our national forests, this bill also helps ensure California has a safe, reliable supply of clean drinking water. This bill would also mean that the hundreds of plant and animal species that make their homes in these areas will continue to have a safe haven. Endangered and threatened species whose habitats will be protected by this bill include the bald eagle, Sierra Nevada Red Fox, and spring run chinook salmon, among others. In short, this bill preserves, prevents, and protects. It preserves our most important lands, it prevents pollution, and it protects our most endangered wildlife. That is why this bill is so widely supported. Thousands of diverse organizations, businesses, and others see the importance of this legislation and have given it their support. Additionally, over 400 local elected officials have voiced support for the protection of their local areas. Despite the tremendous support for this bill, it is not without opponents. They will say this bill is too large and goes too far. Yet this bill is similar in size to other statewide wilderness bills that have already passed Congress. The 1984 California Wilderness Act protected approximately 2 million acres and 83 miles of the Tuolumne River. A more recent wilderness bill, the California Desert Protection Act, protected approximately 6 million acres of desert areas. It is important to note that only 13 percent of California is currently protected as wilderness. This bill would raise that amount to 15 percent. During the last 20 years, 675,000 acres of unprotected wilderness--approximately the size of Yosemite National Park--lost their wilderness character due to activities such as logging and mining. As our population increases, and California becomes home to almost 50 million people, these development pressures are only getting worse. If we fail to act now, there simply will not be any wild lands or wild rivers left to protect. The other big question that has been raised is whether this bill will limit public access to these areas. I do not believe this will be the case. While wilderness designation means the wilderness areas are closed to mountain bikers, they remain open to a myriad of recreational activities, including horseback riding, fishing, hiking, backpacking, rock climbing, cross country skiing, and canoeing. Mountain bikers and motorized vehicles have 100,000 miles of roads and trails in California that are not touched in my bill. Furthermore, numerous economic studies suggest wilderness areas are a big draw that attract outdoor recreation visitors, and tourism dollars, to areas that have received this special designation. One important change has been made to the legislation after concerns were raised about wildfire prevention and control near at-risk communities. The bill I am introducing today protects communities by allowing Federal, local and State agencies to perform fire and emergency response activities in wilderness areas. I worked extensively with the California Department of Forestry on this legislation, and they have expressed their support for the language in the bill. Those of us who live in California have a very special responsibility to protect our natural heritage. Past generations have done it. They have left us with the wonderful and amazing gifts of Yosemite, Big Sur and Joshua Tree. These are places that Californians cannot imagine living without. Now it is our turn to protect this legacy for future generations--for our children's children, and their children. This bill is the place to start and the time to start is now.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I wish to reflect on the 75-year history of Camp San Luis Obispo in my home State of California. A celebration of this special anniversary will be held on August 22, 2003. Established in 1928, Camp San Luis Obispo then Camp Merriam has served our state and nation well: as a training site for the California National Guard, as a training and staging base for the U.S. Army during World War II and the Korean War, and now as the home of the Guard's California Military Academy. Camp San Luis Obispo was established in the years following World War I, when it was recognized that a training site for the Guard was needed. The federal government began using the camp just before World War II. The camp was active throughout the war, and by the end of the war in 1944, it had expanded to 15,433 acres and had the ability to serve more than 20,000 troops. During the Korean War, the Army trained soldiers at the Southwest Signal School that opened in 1951. In July 1965, the State of California regained control of the camp. With the closure of California military installations during the past ten years, the centrally-located Camp San Luis Obispo has served as a resource for Guard and Reserve units. During the past 75 years, Camp San Luis Obispo has provided an important service to the California National Guard and to our nation. This historic camp has served as a training site during some of our nation's most difficult national security challenges. I congratulate Camp San Luis Obispo on this milestone, and commend the California National Guard for their noble service over the years.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, it is my privilege today to recognize the 50th Anniversary of the Pinewood Derby. In 1953, Donald Murphy of Torrance, CA, initiated the first Pinewood Derby, an activity that has been enjoyed by millions of Cub Scouts and their families to date. Mr. Murphy devised a miniature race car from a block of pinewood and asked his employer, the North American Aviation, to sponsor a race of the miniature cars for his son's Cub Scout troop. He hoped the event ``would foster a closer father-son relationship and promote craftsmanship and good sportsmanship through competition.'' The Pinewood Derby quickly became a staple event for Cub Scout Packs. Today, Pinewood Derbies are fun family endeavors that encourage creativity, develop skills, and promote teamwork. At each race, cars with unique paint jobs and designs demonstrate the pride and sense of accomplishment that participants have in their Derby entries. As the ``father'' of the Pinewood Derby, Mr. Murphy can be proud that the Derby has enriched the lives of children and families across the country for half a century. Please join me in recognizing the Pinewood Derby and Mr. Murphy's role in its success.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent that at the completion of my remarks, Senator Baucus be recognized for as much time as he may consume.

Mrs. BOXER. There is a note from Senator Hatch when he was Chairman of the Judiciary Committee during the Clinton administration, which I would like to read. The blue slip we used to receive from Senator Hatch said: ``Please return this form as soon as possible . . . No further proceedings on this nominee will be scheduled until both blue slips''-- that means from each Senator--``have been returned by the nominee's home State Senators.'' That is what we all used to receive from Chairman Hatch. That was his former policy. Then all of a sudden it changed when the President changed. So on process, this was a nomination that should not be before us. Then the bar kept being raised. Senator Feinstein said, let's have a hearing on this nominee and let me see whether I think she ought to move forward. Senator Feinstein listened, asked deep questions, pondered, and then said, no. And she will express for herself why she said no. So we have two home State Senators against this nomination. What happens? The nominee is coming to the floor for a vote. We have not even debated it or discussed it. I wanted to apologize to my friend from Montana, because I know he is talking on another subject, but this is crucial. I predict this Senate will not give the go-ahead to this nominee and I want to make the record clear as to why. It is pretty clear that if we look at the values shared by the American people on such matters as privacy, civil rights, women's rights, access to the courts, whistleblower protection, legal intimidation, the right to the disabled and the environment, on every single one of these very key American values this nominee is way outside the mainstream. There are years of actions that prove what I have said. I do not relish this situation. Everyone who knows me knows that I fight so hard for women's rights and for women to move forward and to break the glass ceiling, but when we see the record of this nominee, I have no choice. I do not deserve to be here if I do not make the case against this nomination and why I believe the proceedings should not move forward. So let me first show how many groups are against this nominee and how controversial this nomination is. I am going to go through these. I am not going to read every name on it but I want to give a sense of this list: the AFL-CIO, the Alliance for Justice--I am skipping some--Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance, Association of Flight Attendants, Breast Cancer Action--and I am going to explain why--Breast Cancer Fund, California Women's Law Center, Clean Water Action, Committee for Judicial Independence, Communications Workers of America, Defenders of Wildlife, Earthjustice, Feminist Majority. Let's go to the next chart. I am skipping many of these because of the time constraints I feel but let me continue. Foundation for a Smoke-Free America--and I will explain why they got involved--Friends of the Earth, Japanese American Citizens League, International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, Los Angeles African American Women's Political Action Committee, Mineral Policy Center, MoveOn.org, NARAL Pro-Choice America, National Center for Lesbian Rights, National Council of Jewish Women, National Employment Lawyers Association, National Organization for Women, National Women's Law Center, Natural Resources Defense Council. Again, I am reading a partial list here. Another list, and this is incredible. This is one judicial nominee that is coming before us the day before we leave when we are in the middle of an Energy bill that the other side says is so important. They are throwing at us one of the most controversial nominees one could find. Office and Professional Employees International Union, Progressive Jewish Alliance, San Francisco Board of Supervisors, San Francisco La Raza Lawyers Association, Sierra Club, Smokefree Educational Services, the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, UNITE, United American Nurses, United Farm Workers, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union. Again, I am reading a partial list. The last chart: Union of Needletrades, Industrial and Textile Employees; Wilderness Society; Women's Committee, Labor Committee for Latin American Advancement; Women's Leadership Alliance; Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, and a number of members of the California delegation. This gives a sense of the breadth of opposition. Let me start off telling a story why so many people are so upset about this nomination. It has to do with a case Judge Kuhl decided in the California courts that deals with a woman who is a cancer victim. I will read this woman's public statement. My name is Azucena Sanchez-Scott. I am a survivor of breast cancer and Judge Kuhl's courtroom. I stand before you now because I want to tell my story so that other people will never have to re-live it. This is a woman who was harmed by Judge Kuhl in a way she will never forget for the rest of her life. Nothing about my cancer is easy. Not the chemotherapy, not the fear, and certainly not the emotional pain or disfigurement. As a person battling cancer, each visit to the doctor brings questions about my future and my health. That is where I was when my doctor and a stranger walked in. The doctor offered no introduction and proceeded to examine me and asked that I disrobe. It was only when I left the office and inquired with the receptionist that I learned that the stranger was a sales representative for a drug company with no medical reason for being there. She continues: As a cancer survivor, I trusted that my doctor would make decisions in my best interest and my doctor violated that trust. The injustice, however, did not end there. Judge Kuhl heard my case and found no fault in the doctor's actions. She ruled that it was my obligation to protect my privacy in his exam room. That I should have battled cancer and my doctor's judgment at the same time. And, she denied my request to allow a jury trial to determine if the intrusion was highly offensive to a reasonable person. We were taught not to question our doctors and I know as a medical health professional that I have an obligation to protect my client's privacy. I was shocked to find that the doctor did not honor this obligation and I think that is why Judge Kuhl's decision was unanimously reversed on appeal. If, however, there is any duty for a citizen to ask questions as a standard to protect our rights to privacy, it lies with the Judiciary Committee. The point is, a woman has breast cancer. She goes to the doctor for a brutally difficult exam. She is humiliated in the office of that doctor by a total stranger, a drug salesman she later finds out, and Judge Kuhl rules against this woman, against her privacy rights, and tells her she should have asked, she should have known to ask who this stranger was that her doctor brought into the room. This is someone the Bush administration wants to promote and give a lifetime judgeship to? I can tell you what the breast cancer groups say. They normally do not get involved in these fights, but they are involved in this one. This is from Breast Cancer Action: On behalf of Breast Cancer Action and our over 8,000 members in California, I am writing in support of your opposition to the nomination of Judge Carolyn Kuhl to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. They say: Based on Kuhl's refusal to protect fundamental woman's rights in cases such as this, the BCA opposes her nomination. This is highly unusual. We have another letter from another organization I want to share. How can anyone be so cold and heartless as to tell someone suffering like this that they have to ask, Who is in the room? in a doctor's office? The Breast Cancer Fund wrote: Quite simply, Judge Carolyn B. Kuhl does not show the level of sound judgment necessary for an appellate court judge. I know we have mostly men in the Senate, although we are moving forward with about 14 women. But any woman in the Senate will tell you, going for that type of an exam, even if you are totally healthy and not just coming out of a breast cancer operation, it is very difficult, it is very nerve racking, it is very embarrassing. To have a woman judge rule against Ms. Sanchez-Scott's privacy is extraordinary to me. To have these kinds of letters from groups like this is extraordinary, and it ought to be extraordinary to every single Senator who should vote not to allow this nomination to go forward. I will quickly go through the other issues where Carolyn Kuhl is outside the mainstream. We mentioned she is outside the mainstream on privacy rights. She is outside the mainstream on civil rights. Kuhl urged the Reagan administration to adopt a position that would grant tax-exempt status to Bob Jones University. More than 200 lawyers in the Justice Department's civil rights division signed a letter in opposition to this position. The New York Times (May 26, 1983) characterized her as part of a ``band of young zealots'' who urged the legal switch. She went forward and defended tax-exempt status for Bob Jones University even though it discriminated on the basis of race. Is this someone we want to elevate? She is outside the mainstream on civil rights. She is also outside the mainstream on access to the courts. What makes our country so great is that we have the ability to go to the courthouse door and get into that courtroom. We have that right as Americans. She argued that organizations do not have standing to sue in Federal court on behalf of their members. She called on the Supreme Court to reject the principle of associational standing, effectively undermining the ability of unions to enforce labor laws. So if you believe, as she does, that a union does not have a right to sue on behalf of the members, that even, say, the NRA, the National Rifle Association, does not have a right to sue, whether the Chamber of Commerce should not have the right to sue, whether an environmental organization should not have the right to sue on behalf of its members, then go ahead and support her. But that undermines a basic, fundamental principle of our laws that organizations have standing to sue on behalf of their members. Whether it is the PTA or any other group, they should have the right and have their day in court. Carolyn Kuhl is outside the mainstream on women's rights. As I go through this, I hope everyone understands it is not as if there were not other people who could have been nominated in California, great people who were Republicans in my State. And I begged the administration to do it. They said: Send a list. And I sent them a list of several wonderful Republicans in my State who would have been great nominees. No, they were going to go forward with this extreme nomination--whatever their reasons, I cannot say--even in the face of the two home State Senators' opposition. Carolyn Kuhl supported a gag rule on title X funds, filing an amicus brief on behalf of the American Academy of Medical Ethics, an organization which represents more than 25,000 doctors who oppose abortion. She argued for restricted access to contraception, imposing additional requirements on recipients of title X funds. We all know our country is divided on the right to choose. My State is very strongly pro-choice, that is true. But in the country it is split. I cannot believe we are split on the issue of contraception. Here we have a nominee who is for limiting access to contraception. This is outside the mainstream on women's rights. She ruled against a rape victim in favor of an insurance company when she had the opportunity to rule in favor of that victim and get that victim support. She supported a restriction on access to abortion and urged reversal of Roe. This is when she worked for the Department of Justice. This is what she said: . . . Roe v. Wade is so far flawed . . . that the Court should reconsider that decision and . . . abandon it. That is what she argued. On the environment, Kuhl represented a large oil company that wanted to avoid cleaning up polluted land. Is that an American value, to stand on the side of a polluter and say let the people take care of it if an oil company polluted their land? I say it is outside the mainstream on the environment. Legal intimidation--and this is very serious: Kuhl ruled against an individual subjected to intimidation and legal costs as a result of speaking out against Medicare and insurance fraud. In unanimously overturning Judge Kuhl's decision-- Unanimously overturning Judge Kuhl's decision--how far out of the mainstream can you be when a court that is dominated by Republicans overturns you unanimously?-- the California State Court of Appeals found her ruling ``would prolong both the [individual] defendant's predicament and the [corporate] plaintiff's outrageous behavior. Outside the mainstream on tobacco. Kuhl was part of a team representing a tobacco company in its effort to manipulate public policy. That was the case State of Minnesota et al v. Philip Morris et al. On the wrong side, out of the mainstream. She was out of the mainstream on exposing corporate fraud. Kuhl challenged the ability of whistleblowers to expose fraud against the Government. Imagine, instead of taking the side of the whistleblowers--and who are whistleblowers? People who are willing to come out and tell the truth. She challenged the ability of whistleblowers to expose fraud against the Government. The case was United States ex rel Jason R. Madden v. General Dynamics Corporation. She also misrepresented the U.S. Government's position on the constitutionality of the Federal whistleblower law in United States ex rel Rohan v. Newert, in 1993. Outside the mainstream on rights for the disabled. She argued airline carriers do not have to abide by antidiscrimination statutes relating to the disabled. Do you know whom she took on in this case? The Paralyzed Veterans of America. It is hard for me to believe this record. It is hard for me to believe you are going to have to vote to move this nomination along. Why do we have all these groups very upset? Because they understand what her record has been. Fighting on the side against paralyzed veterans--it is unbelievable. Let me just say we will have a little more debate on this tomorrow, but I want my colleagues to understand that the way this nomination came to this Senate was just plain wrong. It went against Senator Hatch's own rules that he laid down when President Clinton was President. He said you had to have both Senators sending back their slips to allow this to go forward. Senator Hatch has changed that rule now that we have a different president. Then, when we had two Senators against this nomination--we never expected it would be here--when I spoke to the President's men, they said: ``Give us some ideas of some mainstream people you might support. I was happy to do it. I sent them a list of wonderful people. As a matter of fact, one of the people I recommended is known to the Senator from Oregon. One of the people I recommended for this position was known to the Presiding Officer. Instead of reaching out to the Senators from California and coming in with a consensus nominee, for whatever reason the President chose to continue with this nomination. I can tell you, in all my years, I have never seen such an outcry from the people of this country. I will close. A letter was sent to Senator Feinstein on May 6, 2003, by Shirley Hufstedler, a former Ninth Circuit judge, and the first U.S. Secretary of Education. She said: I do not question Judge Kuhl's skill as a highly trained lawyer. I am troubled by her lack of candor before her Senate hearing and by her apparent insensitivity to the impact her rulings have on some of the people who have come before her as a judge. That is an important point about which I didn't tell you. There were a number of statements Judge Kuhl made before the committee that, when asked in further detail after the hearing, she had to correct and clarify what she had said to the members of the Judiciary Committee. She said, Oh, I made a mistake. I was wrong. I didn't exactly say it right. So whether you look at her performance before the Judiciary Committee, her actions within the Department of Justice during the Ronald Reagan years, her actions as a private lawyer, or her actions as a California judge, it all adds up to outside the mainstream, way outside the mainstream. And it goes against what I believed President Bush made as a commitment to the American people--that he would govern from the center. I have voted for many judges here, probably 90 percent, maybe high 80s. Many were judges I did not agree with, who were conservative, who would not view the world as I view it. It is very rare--very rare--that I have taken to the floor to make this point. I do not do it lightly. This is not a personal attack. I have met Carolyn Kuhl. She is delightful to talk to. But this is not about personalities and it is not about gender and it certainly is not about religion. It is about whether or not the advice and consent of the Senate was really sought in this. It is about how Senators were disregarded, the home State Senators who wanted to cooperate, who put forward names, and it is about her lifetime of fighting for everything that is outside the mainstream of America. I do not think, after that decision on the breast cancer victim, and that alone, that someone who would be that insensitive to say to someone who was fighting breast cancer that you have to come in and you have to ask your doctor who is in the room with you, that it is your job--that kind of decision fails the test of compassion, sensitivity and, above all, the law. She was wrong on the law. She was overturned on the law. For all those reasons, I beg my colleagues to stop this nomination from going forward. Let's get another nominee, a Republican nominee, I am sure--which President Bush has every right to do--but one who comes from the mainstream, with mainstream values and mainstream life. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about a judicial nomination that has gotten no attention on the Senate floor thus far and yet we are going to have a vote on this nomination, as I understand it, tomorrow, the nomination of a woman from California which was ill advised from the start because there was no advice and consent done at all from this administration, at least to this Senator. When I was notified that this nomination was going forward, I had several meetings with the Bush administration people and I asked, why are you choosing someone who is so far out of the center and so far to the extreme right, when the President said he would govern from the center? In fact, I will never forget the night he declared victory, after the Supreme Court made their ruling, and the President came out, very appropriately, and I thought somberly, and said, I am going to bring this country together and I am going to govern from the center. I took him at his word. When President Clinton was in office, I got a pretty stern lecture from Chairman Orrin Hatch, for whom I have great respect. He said, Barbara, I want you to know that if you recommend any judges that are outside the center, forget about it. It is not going to happen. We are not going to let it happen. We want moderates. I do not understand why that does not apply now. It applied to President Clinton. It ought to apply to President Bush. When President Bush said, I want to govern from the center, I took him at his word. When the Constitution says the Senate shall be part of the advice and consent function, that does not mean we roll over and play dead to any President, be he or she Democrat or Republican. It means the President should seek our advice and must win our consent. So when we see a judicial nominee come to this floor, where one of the home-state Senators never even sent back what we call the blue slip, which is sort of the permission slip, giving permission to move forward, when we see that being ignored after it said for many years on the slip, this nomination will not go forward unless you send back the slip--I ask unanimous consent that the blue slip be printed in the Record.

Mrs. BOXER. This is a letter we got ahold of in the Commerce Committee where the lawyers were, in essence, going into all of these schemes and basically telling Enron they were running afoul of State law, and yet the schemes continued. They went on and on. Here are the rest of the strategies used that Senator Cantwell is trying to do away with, trying to do away with these schemes. That is why she has a number of amendments. Death Star: Enron gets paid for moving energy to relieve congestion without actually moving any energy or relieving any congestion. This is detailed in the letter I just put in the Record. Load Shift: By knowingly increasing the congestion costs, Enron is effectively increasing the costs to all market participants in the real time market. This is a great one. Exporting California power: This strategy appears not to present any problems, other than a public relations risk arising from the fact that such exports may have contributed to California's declaration of a Stage 2 Emergency. They were taking power out of my State, robbing my State of its power. Be careful. This could happen to you. As Senator Dorgan said, he gets cheap power. In this bill that cheap power can be brought out of his State and suddenly they are faced with a lack of power. Is this the kind of Energy bill we need so badly, to take these schemes and allow them to happen in your States? Inc-ing Load: The answer is to artificially increase (inc) the load on the schedule submitted to the ISO. It is all fraud. It has all been exposed. We know now why we faced the kind of crisis we faced. Yet we can't get colleagues to listen to Senator Cantwell, to vote for her amendment. Then we get yelled at that we are not doing the right thing for the country. I don't understand what is going on here. If we truly care about our constituents as we say we do, if we truly want to fight for our families, if we care about our small businesses, why would we pass a bill that allows these scams to continue? Why do we have to get lectured about the fact we are derailing something? I am trying to spare what happened to me and my constituents in my State from happening to you and your constituencies in your States. For that, we are being called obstructionist. This is another way to look at what happened. Our demand for electricity in California during our crisis period went up 4 percent. Remember, I told you, we were the most energy efficient. The reason it went up 4 percent is we are growing. I must remind you, I represent 35 million people. We have the fifth largest economy in the world. So our electricity demand went up 4 percent and our wholesale cost of electricity went up 266 percent. No business could survive if our State hadn't come in and taken over when the power companies went under. Our power companies went under. Our electric utility companies went under. It is hard to imagine. They had been in business for 100 years or more. I know my friend from Texas is raring to give her statement so I won't go on anymore. I think before there are charges of obstructionism, we ought to take a deep breath and think about what happened to the largest State in the Union, when we were scammed by the private sector, by people with no morality, by people with no ethics, by people who should be in jail. We were scammed, and we are trying to prevent that from happening all over the country. Instead, what we have is a bill that makes it easier for these scams to continue. What we have is a bill that continues on this path that will hurt consumers all over the country. What Senator Cantwell has been fighting for is the opportunity to offer amendments. With what has happened here now, that is no longer possible. So, yes, some of us are going to continue to tell the story. Some of us are going to say: Let us learn from history. This isn't ancient history; this is 1999 and 2000. What we want to do is make sure we have a system that will protect small business and will protect families and will protect us all from robber barons who come in and set up elaborate scams, giving them names: Death Star, Fat Boy, Get Shorty, Inc-ing, Ricochet. This isn't just some one person who had a thought. This was a conspiracy to harm consumers. As Senator Cantwell said, electricity is a necessity. It is more than a commodity. You can do without a new suit; you can do without a pair of shoes if you already have one; but you cannot do without electricity, if you are in business or if you live in some of the desert areas in my State where senior citizens can get a heatstroke if they don't have their air-conditioner on. Senator Cantwell and I and others simply want to make sure that what happened to us does not happen to us again and what happened to us does not happen to you in your States. I thank the Senate for its indulgence. I am very hopeful that our leaders are working out a way for us to walk away from this electricity title which is so damaging and move forward with a bill that doesn't hurt the people we represent. None of us wants to do it. Let's not do it. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER. This gentleman wrote to me. His name is Zack Ranch. Actually, his wife wrote: I am writing to ask your help. Our family has owned and operated an alfalfa ranch in the Hammil Valley since 1965. Our crop is irrigated in the summer with water pumped from wells, by electric pumps. We have just been informed by Edison that our power rate will double this summer, and will possibly be raised beyond that in the future. Since we have a narrow profit margin to begin with, this will effectively put us out of business. Edison has told us that there is to be no break for farmers. In the past, we have been on a ``time of use'' program in the summer where we pump only during off peak hours, but we aren't able to find if this program will continue. Any information you can offer, or any help you can give us, will be greatly appreciated. Well, we lost so many small businesses and farmers during this period. It would have been worse if the State did not go in. Governor Davis, at that time, took over from the power companies and protected the people from the types of increases that consumers in Washington had, although we went up 25 percent, which is very hard to take, especially for a small business that is working on a small profit margin. Let me show you a chart that demonstrates what happened to us at the height of our problems. This is the Enron scam. I would say to you, Mr. President, in this bill it is even going to be worse for your people because this bill has done away with the one agency that protects you against big mergers; it has essentially eviscerated the power of the FERC. In this situation, eventually FERC was able to step in. But what we have done in this bill so far is not going to make that possible. Let me show you what happened with the wholesale electricity prices. It started to spike up when all these scams--unbeknownst to us; I will go into those scams--hit. Enron led these scams. Other companies apparently did the same. The prices peaked over here, way up here. And then they started to go down when the rate caps were placed in. In between this period and this period, as shown on the chart, our people suffered greatly. This represents a theft of about $9 billion from my people into the pockets of unscrupulous energy companies led by Enron. Let me tell you what happened during this period. We have an overlay for this chart which I showed at the Commerce Committee which investigated this matter. Just to add a little spice to it, this overlay shows how much money Ken Lay and Jeffrey Skilling, the two corporate leaders--if I could use that term--of Enron, made during this period when we were being ripped off. Mr. Lay sold $5 million worth of stock here in December 2000, $6 million worth of stock in February of 2001, and another $3 million worth of stock in May of 2001. Mr. Skilling made millions of dollars as well. So here we are: $3 million, $3 million, and $2 million, the number of shares they sold into the hundreds of thousands. And the price per share, they sold out between $85 and $54. When it was all over, where were the employees of Enron? Flat broke. They lost their jobs. They lost their life savings. They knew what they were doing. They were ripping off the people of my State and selling their stock. And they are not in jail. What do we do in this bill? We make it possible for that to continue because the electricity title does nothing but make matters worse by tying the hands of the people who could stop this nonsense from happening. So when we get a little bit upset and emotional, it is because we have met with the people in our State. We know how they have suffered. We have met with the business community. We know what happened. And we don't see Ken Lay in jail. We don't see Jeffrey Skilling in jail. Do you know what? That is up to the administration to go after them. I urge them to do it. They are going after Martha Stewart. They went after Sam Waksal. Fine. Go after people who do bad things. What happened here is a disaster. These men pocketed tremendous amounts of money. The people who worked for them lost their jobs, lost their retirement. People all over the country went broke with their pension plans. And this electricity title does nothing at all to stop this from happening. Now, I never thought I would have to come out on the floor and bring out these charts again because, honest to God, I thought in the Energy bill we would come up with we would stop these shenanigans. And we can't put Ken Lay in jail here. That is up to the courts. It is up to the Attorney General. We can't put Jeffrey Skilling in jail. We can't get the money back to the people. But what we can do is make sure this does not happen again. And we are not doing it. That is why we are so upset. And when colleagues on the other side say let's stop talking about this; we have talked for 16 days, the truth is we have talked for 8 days. The truth is they are putting in judges, controversial judges. And I have one from my State the two Senators from my State oppose. They are throwing that in the mix, when we ought to be talking about this issue. I want to show you one more thing before I put away this chart. During this period of time, the California delegation, Republicans and Democrats alike, went to seek Dick Cheney. We begged him to take action. We begged him to take action. We said: You are an expert on energy. You know this is a scam. We showed him a chart which showed that plants were being taken offline for so-called maintenance at a rate that was about 10 times higher than had been the normal case. So we were getting shorted electricity on purpose--manipulation. We went to Dick Cheney and we said: Can you help us? Do you know what he said? I will never forget it. He said: Listen, I have one thing to say to you. Your people use too much energy. Well, let me say, my people are No. 1 in terms of the least energy used per capita. Let me repeat that: the least energy used per capita. And look at this chart. As we saw the spikes go up, demand was going down. This was not a market. This was manipulation. Demand was down; electricity was soaring. What Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray and I and Senator Feinstein are trying to tell you is, don't let the California experience go to waste. Look at what happened to us. Look at the corporate thieves that pocketed millions of dollars while our people were taken to the cleaners, while the employees of these companies lost their jobs, lost their pensions. If I have to see another one of these cases again, it would just be tragic. Can't we learn from history? That is what we are supposed to do, learn from history. So when we stand up and say we want to fight for our amendments, we want to make sure that the Federal Government can step in and stop this robbery, it isn't because we are trying to derail anything. If anything, we are trying to get an Energy bill on track that is going to spare other States the tragedy that our State experienced. It isn't anything about too much demand. Our demand was down, and the prices soared. Why did that happen? Because scams were put into place. I will just show a few of these scams. Here is Get Shorty: In order to short the ancillary services, it is necessary to submit false information that purports to identify the source of the ancillary services. The traders are careful, however, to be sure to buy services right at 9:00 a.m. so that Enron is not actually called upon to provide ancillary services. That comes straight out of the lawyer's letter. I ask unanimous consent to print the letter in the Record.