Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mrs. BOXER. Yes.

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

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, so my colleagues know, I will be very brief on this amendment because I am extremely pleased that it has been accepted by both sides. I know enough that when you have an ``aye'' vote, be brief. I will probably take about 5 minutes, and then I understand my friend Paul Wellstone wants to speak in support. First, let me thank my colleagues, both Democratic and Republican, for accepting this amendment which I think is an important one because it looks to the problem of natural gas prices. What we have seen when Americans are opening up their utility bills this month, some of them are in complete shock because in many cases their bills have doubled and tripled. We believe the cause is the spike in natural gas prices. It would be very simple if we could tell people not to use the heat in their homes. But heat is a necessity. Although we can all do our best, this is not similar to buying a candy bar. It is something that a lot of our people need. It is not a luxury. They need the natural gas to heat their homes. If we look at the facts, we can see in the last few months natural gas prices have skyrocketed. In California, it is hard to even believe this, but the facts show that natural gas prices have increased twentyfold, from $3 per million Btu's to nearly $60 per million Btu's. Experts agree that one of the major causes of this price increase is a lack of supply. That includes a lack of natural gas reserves. In other words, the reserves just are not there in times of crisis or a crunch. In California, the lack of a reserve was compounded by the rupture of an El Paso Natural Gas Company pipeline in Carlsbad, NM, on August 1, 2000. What is very important about this underlying legislation, and why I support it so much, is that we want to make sure similar accidents are prevented. We do not want to face the tragedy of lost lives anywhere in this country. With safe pipelines, we will not have to face that. But, in addition, when we do not have these accidents, we will not see an interruption in the supply of natural gas. We need to look at and solve the lack of natural gas reserves in times of extreme shortages. My amendment attempts to get to the bottom of these issues. It requires a National Academy of Sciences study to investigate this problem. First, the study will determine the causes of recent increases in the price of natural gas. Second, the study will identify any Federal and State policies which may have contributed to this price increase. Finally, and to me most important, the study will determine how the Federal Government can take action to ensure that there is an adequate reserve supply in the future. I especially want to learn about the feasibility and advisability of a Federal strategic natural gas reserve for use during supply and price emergencies. We all know we have a Strategic Petroleum Reserve. We also know that a natural gas reserve raises other issues, but, in fact, it may well be feasible. I trust my amendment will help all of us understand the causes of the natural gas problem we are facing, and I am very optimistic that this study will give us a range of solutions to meet this crisis now and in the future. The spike in natural gas prices is not a California phenomenon, although we have seen, probably, the worst of the spikes in prices. We are beginning to see it all over the country. That is why my friend, Barbara Mikulski, wanted to be a cosponsor of this amendment. That is why Senator Wellstone as well wants to support it and wants to speak on it. With deep thanks to my friends who have accepted this amendment, I yield the floor at this time. I ask for a vote on the amendment at the appropriate time.

Mrs. BOXER. May I say yes, it is. I would like to add Senator Murkowski as a cosponsor.

Mrs. BOXER. Murkowski--Mikulski and Murkowski. This is a banner day.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for one point in the form of a question?

Mrs. BOXER. My friend is so right. Because of the urgency of this matter, we have called for a 60-day study. I want to make sure my friend knows that. This bill is just a 60-day study so we can get the information back and then come before the Senate with solutions. I want to make sure my friend is aware of that.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask that Senator Feinstein be added as a cosponsor of the amendment.

Mrs. BOXER. I yield to Senator McCain so we can dispose of this amendment.

Mrs. BOXER. I will be brief. I thank Senator Craig and Senator Smith for their indulgence. I did not want to see a break here. I thank my colleague, Senator Feinstein, for laying out what we are going through in California with this power crisis. I have already spoken about the natural gas problem which is a separate problem but nonetheless very important to us. She really laid out well the situation in which we find ourselves. I have maybe some differing views with her on the final way to solve it, but I absolutely agree with her, at this time what is most important is to stabilize the market for the short-term. I compliment her on putting together the chart showing us the real facts; that we are going to be short electricity in the summer months. I do believe--and I am optimistic; we already see signs of this--that California is going to come out of this. Again, we don't know exactly if it is going to be a more regulated system. We don't know whether it will continue to be a hybrid system or a full deregulation, which I don't think will happen. The fact is, we have a real short-term problem. I implore my colleagues, particularly those from the western States who are starting to see this problem spread to their area, to take a look at this idea of a temporary cap on these wholesale prices. At least in that way, we could be sure of supply at a reasonable price to get us through these summer months. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a column written by Peter King--not the Congressman--with the Sacramento Bee called ``If Only Myths Were Megawatts.'' The notion is exploding a lot of myths about California. For example, we rank 47th in per capita use of energy consumption. Our consumption has gone up 11 percent in the last period of time, but the rest of the country's consumption has gone up 22 percent. We are doing our part. We are trying. We will succeed. Just remember, when California gets a cold, they eze all over the country. We are the sixth largest country in the world, if measured by GDP. I thank my colleague from California for her insights and yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I would like to respond to a letter my colleague Senator Sessions inserted into the Record last evening from the editor of Southern Partisan magazine. In that letter, the editor claims that his magazine did not sell a t-shirt celebrating the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln. In my floor remarks yesterday, I stated that the magazine did in fact sell this offensive shirt, and showed my colleagues a reproduction of the actual shirt. In particular, the editor stated that this ``tasteless item has never been advertised or sold on the pages of our magazine.'' The editor goes on to say that a part-time staff member complied a catalog of southern items, including the offensive Lincoln t-shirt, and that the brochure advertising those items were mailed ``without careful review by our editors.'' I would like to insert into the Record a copy of a 1995 letter from Southern Partisan, which is on the Southern Partisan magazine editor- in-chief's letterhead, which clearly indicates that the magazine did in fact sell this offensive shirt. This letter states in relevant part: ``Due to the surprising demand for our anti-Lincoln T-shirt, our stock has been reduced to odd sizes. If the enclosed shirt will not suffice, we will be glad to refund your money or immediately ship you another equally militant shirt from our catalog [emphasis added].''

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I would like to recognize Judge Brett Dorian as he retires after almost 12 years as a United States Bankruptcy Judge in Fresno, California. Brett Dorian's legal career reflects a long and honorable commitment to public service. His dedication spans more than three decades, beginning with his service in the United States Air Force. Upon graduation from Boalt Hall, University of California, Berkeley Mr. Dorian helped and assisted the underprivileged in Central California as a legal aid lawyer. He then went on to a distinguished career in private practice where he specialized in bankruptcy law and served as a bankruptcy trustee for many years. In 1988, Judge Dorian was appointed to the United States Bankruptcy Court in Fresno. He served as a Bankruptcy Judge for almost 12 years. Judge Dorian served an eight county area in Central California. Judge Dorian has long been known as a thorough, dedicated and compassionate judge. Throughout his judicial career, he was diligent in carefully balancing the law in his cases and protecting the rights of those who appear before him. Judge Dorian has served the people of California as well as all Americans with great distinction. I am honored to pay tribute to him today and I encourage my fellow colleagues to join me in wishing Judge Brett Dorian continued happiness as he embarks on new endeavors.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank Senator Hatch and Senator Reid for reserving this time for me. As most people know, there were several Members who came out early with a position on John Ashcroft. Most came out for him before the hearings, and I came out against his confirmation. The people who came out for John Ashcroft before the hearings said they knew enough to know they were for him. I said, after looking at the record and being very familiar with the record, I could not support him. I actually asked then-President-elect Bush to reconsider his choice because I believed him when he said he wanted to unite the Nation rather than divide the Nation. I felt this nomination would be very divisive, would raise the very same issues that were raised during one of the most difficult campaigns that I certainly ever remember for President. I think what I said was borne out. This Presidential election was a mandate. Many people think if all the votes had been counted, it might have come out a different way. That is not the point. The point is, because it was so divisive, whoever won, whether it was Al Gore or George W. Bush, whoever actually took the office--in this case the Supreme Court decided to stop the count, and George W. Bush became President--whoever was President had to know that this was a very divided Nation and that we needed to put up moderate people--moderate people--for important offices such as Attorney General, Interior Secretary, and the like. For me, it is very rare to oppose a Bush Cabinet nominee. Out of all of them, I have opposed two. I have supported every other one. One thing John Ashcroft said is: I supported 90 percent of President Clinton's judges. Well, I supported 90 percent of George W. Bush's Cabinet picks. Therefore, when I choose to say no, it is because I feel very deeply and very firmly that John Ashcroft is not the right choice. President Bush said he picked John Ashcroft because ``he has a commitment to fair and firm and impartial administration of justice.'' He told us that John Ashcroft is ``a man who has a good and decent heart,'' and he asked us to look into the heart of John Ashcroft. Believe me, I have done that. And I have looked into the hearts of people who John Ashcroft has hurt. I believe this nomination should be rejected. I will be very specific. Judge Ronnie White: Was John Ashcroft's treatment of Judge Ronnie White fair? Did he have a good heart when it came to dealing with Judge Ronnie White? Let's revisit it. The American Bar Association gave Judge White a unanimous qualified rating. Judge White was introduced at his nomination hearing for judgeship in front of the Judiciary Committee with glowing remarks by Senator Bond. With no warning, John Ashcroft championed the defeat of Judge White's nomination on the Senate floor. I have been in elective life for 25 years; certain things you do not remember and a lot of things you do. I will never forget the day this Senate voted down Judge Ronnie White on a straight partisan vote--the first time in 50 long years that a judge nominee who had been passed favorably through the Judiciary Committee was so treated. Why would I remember it so clearly? I thought a few people might vote no just as we have on many judge nominations. But I never thought that John Ashcroft would have rounded up and made it a big political issue that all the Republicans would stick with him on this vote. We all know, because we are not children in this body, there are other ways to treat someone who suddenly doesn't look like he will be confirmed. You bring it back to the committee, you have another vote. You don't do what they did to Ronnie White. I remember that Congresswoman Maxine Waters, one of my good friends, came over from the House that day. She was here because she wanted to celebrate the fact that Ronnie White was going to get this judgeship. She and I looked at each other as the nomination went down. It was a humiliating defeat. It was a sad, sad day. I compliment those Senators on the Judiciary Committee who apologized to Ronnie White. He never, ever should have been treated that way. It was unnecessary to do that to any human being. So, yes, I have looked into John Ashcroft's heart. And I say how could someone with a good heart do that to another good person? I do not understand it. I hope Senator Feingold will be listening, too, when he says to President Bush: Why don't you renominate Ronnie White in the spirit of reconciliation? During his floor remarks, John Ashcroft pointed to Judge White's dissent in a murder case. It was a horrific case. Yet John Ashcroft did not ask any questions of Judge White during the confirmation hearing or even afterwards in written follow-up questions about that case. I think a fundamental guarantee of our system of justice, particularly from someone who wants to be an Attorney General, is the right to give someone you are criticizing the right to be heard. Judge Ronnie White did not have that right until the Democrats called him up during this hearing. I appreciate the fact that he had that hearing in front of the Republicans and Democrats of that committee. That nomination was sabotaged on the floor of the Senate. It was wrong; it was harsh; it was cruel; it was humiliating; and it was not necessary. I think that speaks volumes about John Ashcroft's commitment to fairness. On the Senate floor, John Ashcroft said that Judge White was ``pro-criminal, with a tremendous bent toward criminal activity.'' In the Judiciary Committee hearings last week, Judge White noted that after a long career in public service, including elective office, he had never, ever heard himself described that way. Judge White got the chance to set the record straight. He told the Judiciary Committee that he voted to affirm the death penalty 41 times out of 59 cases. And in 10 of the remaining 18, he joined a unanimous court in reversing. All together, Judge White voted with the majority of the court in 53 out of 59 cases. In only 6 cases did he dissent in a death penalty case, and in only 3 of those was he the sole dissenter. When you add this all up, it turns out that Judge White voted the same way as Ashcroft appointed judges--95 percent of the time. How did Judge White feel about John Ashcroft's pro-criminal label? This is what he said. He told the Judiciary Committee, ``Senator John Ashcroft seriously distorted my record.'' And he very graciously left it up to the Senate to decide whether that kind of treatment is consistent with fair play and justice that an Attorney General is expected to have. Conservative columnist Stuart Taylor of the National Journal has written that John Ashcroft's treatment of Judge White is enough to disqualify him for the position of Attorney General. Of Mr. Ashcroft's actions in the Ronnie White matter, Mr. Taylor wrote that Ashcroft: . . . abused the power of his office by descending to demagoguery, dishonesty, and character assassination. Those are not my words. Those are the words of Stuart Taylor, a conservative journalist for the National Journal. Let's just say you think everybody is entitled to one mistake, to one mistreatment of another individual. Let's just say that. Unfortunately, in this case, I am going to point to a number of other examples. Take the case of James Hormel. Ambassador Hormel was nominated in 1997 to be the U.S. Ambassador to Luxembourg. He was approved by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee by a vote of 16-2. One of those ``no'' votes was cast by Senator Ashcroft. Why did Senator Ashcroft oppose Ambassador Hormel, a very well-known businessman, a beautiful family--why? Let's check the record. In 1998, when asked about the nomination of James Hormel, Senator Ashcroft said: His conduct and the way in which he would represent the United States is probably not up to the standard that I would expect. Senator Ashcroft continued: He has been a leader in promoting a lifestyle. . .and the kind of leadership he's exhibited there is likely to be offensive to. . .individuals in the setting to which he will be assigned. This is the comment of John Ashcroft on the nomination of James Hormel. Clearly, by this statement-- He has been a leader in promoting a lifestyle. . .and the kind of leadership he has exhibited there is likely to be offensive to. . .individuals in the setting to which he will be assigned. To me, you don't have to have a degree in psychology to understand what John Ashcroft is saying. He is saying he is a leader in promoting a gay lifestyle. That is what he is saying. This issue came up at the Judiciary Committee. When Senator Leahy asked John Ashcroft if he opposed James Hormel because he was gay, Senator Ashcroft replied: I did not. He said: I made a judgment that it would be ill-advised to make him an ambassador based on the totality of the record. He went on to say: I had known Mr. Hormel for a long time. Ambassador Hormel responds: There is simply no truth in Mr. Ashcroft's statement that he had any objective basis or personal knowledge upon which to vote against my nomination. He went on to say: He refused to give any specific example of anything in my record on which to base his opposition. I can only conclude Mr. Ashcroft chose to vote against me solely because I am a gay man. Is this fair? I already talked about Ronnie White. Senator Ashcroft never had the courtesy to ask Ronnie White any questions about the case that he said disqualified Ronnie White for a judgeship. And he led a fight here on the floor such that we have not seen in 50 long years to defeat Ronnie White. And he refused to meet at that time with Ambassador Hormel. Ambassador Hormel said: I want to meet with you, Senator Ashcroft. No. He refused. And Mr. Hormel stated he cannot remember having a single conversation with the Senator. Then, in his answers to a written follow-up question after the Judiciary Committee hearings last week, John Ashcroft changes his story. Ashcroft stated that: [B]ased on the totality of Mr. Hormel's advocacy, I didn't believe he would effectively represent the United States in Luxembourg, the most Roman Catholic country in all of Europe. So we have different answers. First, it was the totality of his knowledge of Mr. Hormel, whom he knew so well. Then Mr. Hormel says: He didn't even want to meet with me. And then he changes his answer again. He hurt James Hormel deeply by not allowing that Ambassadorship to come up for a vote. I think that kind of hurt says to me that when I look at his heart, I don't see the kindness and the caring about other people. So, you would say, OK, that was two. That was Ronnie White and James Hormel. Do we stop there? Unfortunately, we don't. We go to Margaret Morrow. Was John Ashcroft fair to Margaret Morrow, the first woman to head the Los Angeles Bar Association and the California Bar Association, nominated to the Federal district court in May of 1996, and not until 2 whole years later were we able to finally get a vote? And I must thank Chairman Hatch for that--by February 11, 1998. Why did it take so long? Simple: John Ashcroft placed a secret hold on Ms. Morrow's nomination. The hold kept Morrow from having a vote on the Senate floor; it kept her from having a fair up-or-down vote. I do not think that is fair. That was hurtful. He said she was an ``activist judge.'' In fact, Ms. Morrow had overwhelming Republican support, to the contrary. Robert Bonner, a U.S. attorney appointed by Ronald Reagan, supported her. Many Senators from the Judiciary Committee, including Senator Hatch, supported her. James Rogan supported her. And yet he put this hold on her. Finally, we were able to get him to back off. For 2 years, that court ran without Margaret Morrow on it, and now she serves proudly after getting a vote of 67-28. He was so out of line on that. A strong majority supported Margaret Morrow. You have heard the stories: Ronnie White, James Hormel, Margaret Morrow, human beings with faces and hearts and pulses who were hurt by John Ashcroft, hurt deeply by John Ashcroft. But there is more. Bill Lann Lee, was John Ashcroft fair to him when he was nominated to be Assistant U.S. Attorney for Civil Rights? When he arrived here in 1997, he had a long record at the NAACP of fighting discrimination. Yet even Lee's former corporate opponents came to lobby for him--what a wonderful person he is. He supported the law, the law of giving people a chance, affirmative action laws. John Ashcroft did not like that law, which, by the way, he will be sworn now to uphold. He blocked Bill Lann Lee's nomination, and Bill Lann Lee never got an up-or- down vote. He served as an acting head of that division. I know the story of Bill Lann Lee. He is an incredible example of the American dream. He worked his way up from the bottom of the economic ladder. His father ran a laundry where they sweated every single day to help their son get an education, and this is the way he was treated in the greatest nation in the world. It was hurtful. It was very hurtful to Bill Lann Lee. It was very hurtful to the people in this country who were looking to Bill Lann Lee as a role model. This is what John Ashcroft said about Bill Lann Lee: We don't need an individual who is trying to go against the Constitution as recently interpreted by the Supreme Court. We need someone who is going to say I'm here to provide the administration. Bill Lann Lee said under oath that he would uphold the Constitution, just as John Ashcroft is saying he will. Yet he did not give Bill Lann Lee a chance. He hurt this man deeply. That is a story of looking into the heart of someone. I think you have to be judged by not only your words but your deeds in totality, so I have not given one example; I have given four. I could give more. I will not. I want to talk about the Southern Partisan. I want to talk about the fact that John Ashcroft as a Senator in 1998 gave an interview to the Southern Partisan magazine. Put in a most straightforward way, this magazine promotes racism. This is a picture of a T-shirt that is advertised in this magazine. This is a portrait of Abraham Lincoln, and they sell this on a T-shirt. This is Latin. It says: ``Thus be it to tyrants.'' It is a picture of Lincoln: ``Thus be it to tyrants.'' Those are the words that were uttered by the assassin of Abraham Lincoln. Abraham Lincoln was quoted by Senator Brownback, and he made a beautiful speech. This is sold by this magazine. The words of John Wilkes Booth are underneath: ``Thus be it always to tyrants.'' In his interview, John Ashcroft praised the magazine and its mission: Your magazine also helped set the record straight. You've got a heritage of doing that, of defending southern patriots. Traditionalists should do more. I've really got to do more. We've all got to stand up and speak in this respect or else we will be taught that these people were giving their lives, ascribing their sacred fortunes and their honor to some perverted agenda. Now he says he did not know about the magazine. Let's look at that. First of all, there was an amazing exchange in the committee between Senator Biden and John Ashcroft. Senator Biden gave John Ashcroft the opportunity to denounce this magazine. He said: What do you think of it now that you know what they do, what they stand for, the T-shirt, and the rest? John Ashcroft basically did not answer him. Senator Biden was taken aback because he had the opportunity to say: This is a racist magazine; I'll never talk to them. He did not say it. He said: I deplore what is deplorable. That was his response to Senator Biden. He had a chance. He said: On the magazine, frankly, I can't say that I knew very much at all. . . . I've given magazine interviews to lots of people . . . and I regret that speaking to them is being used to imply that I agree with their views. If you go back to what he said when he spoke to them, he said: Your magazine also helped set the record straight. You've got a heritage of doing that, of defending southern patriots. . . . So how does he say he never heard of the magazine when you look at his quote and he knows of the magazine, because he says: Your magazine also helped set the record straight. You've got a heritage of doing that, of defending southern patriots. . . . And it goes on. It does not ring true. He had a chance in simple language to say: I will never talk to them again. He did not do it. We could look at Bob Jones University, and I will not go into the details of that, but we have to believe that he knew about the racist policies when he accepted their degree because those policies were the subject of a huge Supreme Court case that was decided when he was attorney general of Missouri. The case was Bob Jones v. the United States. It was on the front page of the major newspapers when it was decided. In that case, the Supreme Court reversed the university's tax exempt status because of the racist policy that John Ashcroft said he did not know about. But he was an attorney general at the time that decision came down. Again, I think he could have said more at the hearings to distance himself from the university's policies. These are the things that say to me, out of the 280 million Americans in our country, there has to be someone who is better suited for this job. We have heard a lot about a woman's right to choose. Regardless of your feelings on it--I happen to be of a mind that the Government has no business telling a woman about her reproductive health care in the beginning of a pregnancy, which is Roe v. Wade; that is the law of the land--I would hope we could come together when it comes to preventing unwanted pregnancies by contraception. That seems to be an area of common ground where both sides could come together. Because if you do not get pregnant, if you do not want a child, you do not have to have an abortion. It works. It will lower the number of abortions. But when John Ashcroft was attorney general, he sued nurses who were giving contraception to women. Let me repeat that. He went against settled law in Missouri when he was attorney general. He tried to stop nurses, through the courts, from handing out contraception. It was settled law that those nurses could do it, but John Ashcroft argued that Missouri law did not allow for it. The Missouri Supreme Court ruled against John Ashcroft. It strongly pointed out his interpretation was out of step with settled law. This is what the Missouri Supreme Court had to say: We believe the acts of the nurses [providing contraceptives, breast and pelvic exams] are precisely the types of acts the legislature contemplated. . . . The Court believes that it is significant that while at least forty states have modernized and expanded their nursing practice laws during the past fifteen years, neither counsel nor the Court have discovered any case challenging nurses' authority to act as the nurses herein acted. In other words, in 40 States, not one other attorney general ever sued nurses and tried to stop them from providing these services to women. On this occasion, it was in rural clinics. So when John Ashcroft says he is going to uphold settled law, I am sure he said that when he was the attorney general of Missouri. Then, if we look at other issues concerning women, he also sued the National Organization for Women. When he was an attorney general in the 1980s, he sued NOW to stop their campaign to win ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment. Now, maybe he does not agree with the Equal Rights Amendment, he does not want women to be equal through the Equal Rights Amendment. Maybe he does not believe it is necessary, for whatever reason. But to sue a woman's organization for 3 years--losing at every step but never giving up; taking it to the U.S. Supreme Court after the Circuit Court of Appeals, and they all rejected his arguments--it seems to me, since that was also settled law in a case from 1961, we have to question: What does he mean when he says he will accept settled law? Voluntary desegregation: Others have spoken about this. How do you fight a voluntary desegregation plan that everyone came together and said was a good way to help our kids? Well, he figured out how to do it. And I will tell you, his rhetoric was very strong. He called the voluntary plan an ``outrage against human decency'' and an ``outrage against the children of this State.'' The conservative Economist magazine described Ashcroft this way--and it turned out he and his opponent were both arguing: The campaign quickly degenerated into a context over who was most opposed to the plan for voluntary racial desegregation . . . The court roundly criticized then-Attorney General Ashcroft. They said: The court can only draw one conclusion . . . the state has, as a matter of deliberate policy, decided to defy the authority of this court. From the St. Louis Post-Dispatch in 1982, Ashcroft was ``making himself a familiar advocate before the Supreme Court, most often as the antagonist of civil rights interests.'' So here you have a nominee, who is supposed to firmly uphold the civil rights laws, being called an antagonist of civil rights interests in an article in 1982. This was an election where many African American voters believed they were disenfranchised. They are looking at this Senate and thinking they cannot believe that this is the individual George Bush would put before us. Why do I say that? Because there is a case on point about voter registration. While John Ashcroft was Missouri Governor, he vetoed a bill that would have allowed volunteers to register voters in the largely African American city of St. Louis; in other words, a bill to allow the League of Women Voters to encourage voter registration. The very interesting bottom line of this case is, in the white parts of the county he allowed this voter registration to go on. When he vetoed the first bill, he said he had a problem with it. But then he vetoed it again. It seems to me that anyone who believes that we ought to have our voting rights be sacred in this Nation would have problems voting for this nominee. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch noted at the time: Gov. John Ashcroft has decided that [some citizens] . . . should continue to be treated differently from others on the matter of voter registration. So, Mr. President, I am sure you are glad to hear I am about to sum up, to finish. What I have tried to do in this presentation is to speak from my heart because that is what George Bush asked me to do. He said: Look in your heart and look in the heart of John Ashcroft. I believe that he meant for me to do that. In my advise and consent responsibility, I have looked into the heart of John Ashcroft. And how can I do it? By looking at the way he treats other people. My mother taught me to do that. You can say a lot of things in life. You can tell your kids, be good to your neighbor, but if they see you walk past your neighbor, if your neighbor is lying on the street, they know something is not right. When I talk to people and see people such as Ronnie White--a beautiful family man, qualified, the American dream personified-- humiliated on the Senate floor, I cannot look away from that. When I see Margaret Morrow hanging and twisting in the wind for 2 years because John Ashcroft put a secret hold on her, I have to look at that. When I see James Hormel, a distinguished man, humiliated, hurt, turned down for an Ambassadorship because he happened to be a gay man, I cannot look away from that. And when I see Bill Lann Lee, whose father and mother sweated in a laundry so that he could get the American dream--when I see him hurt and humiliated--I cannot look away from that. Maybe my colleagues can, and they see other things that I do not see. I respect them so much. And I respect their right to feel strongly, just as I do on the other side of this issue. But I have taken this time because I feel so deeply about this. The Attorney General is the Nation's guardian of civil rights, of human rights, of women's rights, of the environment, of sensible gun laws. He or she must be moderate to bring the country together. What did John Ashcroft say about moderates? He said: There are two things you find in the middle of the road: A moderate and a dead skunk, and I don't want to be either. Mr. President, I have looked into the heart of John Ashcroft. I do not think he is the right person for this job. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER. If we could have a unanimous consent agreement that following Senator Brownback, Senator Reid would be recognized, and then Senator Boxer.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, since last week, I have introduced several bills to help California deal with the electricity crisis and to help prevent such emergencies from occurring in other States in the future. Today, I am introducing another such bill--the State Electricity Reserve Fund Act. Current electricity generating capacity is tied to the expected need. Private generating companies have no incentive to build or maintain facilities that would generate capacity greater than what is needed to meet consumer demand. The plants would be idle most of the time. As a result, electricity shortages can occur. A lack of rainfall, which means that hydroelectric facilities cannot be operated as often, as well as unseasonably hot or cold temperatures, or rapid population increases in a State can all result in a demand for electricity unexpectedly exceeding supply. But with supply tied to expected demand, this can result in devastatingly large price increases for consumers and/or electricity shortages, which in turn could cause brownouts or blackouts. This is exactly what has happened in California. In the late 1980's, the California Public Utilities Commission required utilities to determine demand for new power generating capacity. At that time, the state recognized that generation needs could increase. However, the utilities argued that no new capacity would be needed in California until 2005. The utilities fought the attempt by the state to make them build more generating capacity. The utilities argued it was not needed. It turned out that it was needed. And whether the utilities should have known is another argument for another day. But the point here is that we cannot rely on the private sector to create a ``rainy day fund'' of electricity in the event of emergencies. So, the State Electricity Reserve Fund Act would create a revolving loan fund for states to use to help pay for the creation of an electricity reserve capacity. These loans could be used by states to build electricity generation facilities that would be controlled by the state and would be kept in reserve unless the Governor of the State declares an electricity emergency. Mr. President, it is not an unusual thing for the federal government to prepare for energy emergencies. We have the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in the case of oil shortages, and last year we established the Home Heating Oil Reserve for the Northeastern States. My bill is based on the same premise. True, we cannot store electricity like we can store petroleum and heating oil. But we can financially help States build a reserve facility, including a reserve of the fuel that is needed to generate electricity, to be used in the case of electricity emergencies. If such a reserve had existed in California, we would not have reached State III emergencies and rolling blackouts over the past couple of weeks. Mr. President, I think being prepared for emergencies is always a good policy. Helping States be prepared for electricity emergencies is no different. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. BOXER

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

Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Senator.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, she had a good answer on the Outer Continental Self moratorium where she said she supported the States rights not to drill. When I pressed her on 36 existing leases off Santa Barbara, I didn't get the same answer. She said she would look at them on a case-by-case basis. That is not good enough because the State doesn't want any drilling there. Why wouldn't she just take it off the table? She couldn't do that. I am very troubled, and we will have a lot of debate over those 36 existing leases. It is one of the most pressing environmental issues in California. We have unwavering opposition to the development of those leases. Since she says she is for States rights, now she can't suddenly say I'm for States rights on this one. Finally, I want to address the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. I am not going to spend a lot of time on that. That will come at a later date. I agree with President Bush. It is unfair to criticize her for not wanting to drill in the Arctic. He says, I do; of course, my Secretary would. I have no problem with that. However, Ms. Norton seems to have enthusiasm about drilling there. If you look at her historical role in pushing to open up the refuge, and her links to the oil and gas industry through the Mountain States Legal Foundation, and the oil companies that hire her current lobbying firm, and the oil and gas interests that gave her significant contributions during her Senate race, I think there are valid questions we could raise about whether she can effectively serve the role that the Secretary must fill in this type of decision-making. What do I mean by that? Let me show you a picture of the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. You already saw a picture of the caribou there. This is just an open view of the Coastal Plain. By the way, this came from, if Senator Murkowski is listening, the State biologists in Alaska. They wanted us to show this Coastal Plain. Basically, we are going to have a huge debate over whether to open up this refuge to drilling. This is going to be a tough debate. I know that at best there is 6 months' worth of oil there. If you just change the mileage on SUVs a few miles you wouldn't have to do any of this. But we will have that debate. I look forward to it. But Ms. Norton, in her position, is going to have to be objective about facts such as how much oil lies there, and what is the impact on the caribou and the rest of the environment. I question whether she would be objective given her strong stand in favor of oil drilling. My State is suffering from energy problems. I want to put something right out here right now. Outside of California, the people are saying it is California's fault because it didn't build enough powerplants. I want to explain something. It was explained very well in the New York Times editorial. Our utilities did not want to build any powerplants because they want to control the supply. The fact is, no new plants were built in the 1990s because prices were low, supplies were plentiful, and producers wanted to wait until they better understood the new era of deregulation. The State of California recognized back in the 1980s that generation needs might increase, and they tried to move forward with building for new generating plants. It was the utilities, not conservationists, who blocked the efforts. They said we didn't need any new capacity until 2005, and they took their appeal to the State administrative law judge in their efforts to stop the State's push for new generating plants. The utilities lost that battle. The State said you have to build new generating plants. Do you know what the utilities did? They ran to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. And guess what the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission did. they sided with the utilities over the objections of the State, and therefore we did not have these plants go on line. Finally, now they are coming on line, and that, along with long-term contracts and energy conservation, will solve our needs. I can assure you that rolling back environmental laws and making our air dirty is the last thing my constituents want or need. In Ms. Norton's testimony before the Energy Committee, she backed away from her life's work. Call me simplistic--and you can, and I don't mind it because I know I am a tough debater in this way. Call me simplistic, but I do not believe that a lifetime commitment to repealing environmental laws can be dissipated by nice, warm, fuzzy statements made in front of a committee. I was not born yesterday. I watched James Watt. He made nice, warm, fuzzy statements in front of the committee. He said: I will fully and faithfully execute the public land laws adopted by Congress. I believe in balance. He said in his answers: Gee, I am unfamiliar with the details. That is what Ms. Norton said. As a matter of fact, I find the parallels chilling, looking at her answers and looking at his answers. We remember Secretary Watt's tenure at the Department of the Interior: Catastrophic impacts on the environment, opening up millions of acres of protected Federal lands, blocking Federal land acquisitions, making substantial changes in strip mining regulations that weakened or directly repealed environmental law, new plans for oil and gas drilling in the Arctic, et cetera. In closing, let me say I cannot vote for someone for this important position whose life record has been against every single law that she says she will now protect. There is too much at stake for my State. There is too much at stake for the Nation. I have laid out my reasons. I take the Senate's responsibility of advice and consent seriously. I would like to submit for the Record some of Ms. Norton's writing which include the extreme statements I referred to in my comments. I ask unanimous consent they be printed in the Record.

Mrs. BOXER. Thank you very much. Mr. President, I rise to explain to my colleagues, and to my constituents, why I will vote no on the nomination of Gale Norton to be Secretary of the Interior. It is very rare for me to oppose any Cabinet nominee because I approach the whole subject of advise and consent on Cabinet nominations with the presumption that the President has the right to pick his or her own Cabinet. Having said that, you cannot walk away from a constitutional responsibility to advise and consent if you feel that nomination is way outside the mainstream of American thought, and if you feel that nomination could harm our country in one way or another. And I have many questions about this nominee which lead me to the conclusion that it would be far better to have someone more mainstream in this position. I will be explaining it through a series of charts and through my comments. I have supported all of President Bush's nominees but for two--this one, and John Ashcroft, which we will be speaking about later this week and perhaps into next week. I will start by discussing why this position is so important. The Secretary of the Interior is the primary steward of our Nation's natural resources. One of the most incredible gifts that we have from God is our natural resources, the beauty of our Nation. It seems to me we have a God-given responsibility to protect those resources for future generations. Into the hands of the Secretary of the Interior we place a vast amount of control over our parks, over our wildlife refuges, over grasslands, over ranges, and over endangered fish and wildlife. I will just show you a beautiful photograph. I have a few. This particular one is Death Valley National Park. What you can see from this photograph is the magnificent environment the Secretary of the Interior will be protecting. If a decision is made, for example, to extract minerals from a park such as this, you could certainly endanger this beauty. She will make decisions regarding grazing, mining, offshore oil and gas development, habitat protection or habitat destruction, and American Indian tribal concerns that will have far-reaching and long-lasting consequences. I asked her some questions about some of these areas in my State, and I have to tell you, as I will in greater detail, that I was very saddened; they were really no answers. There was no commitment that I wanted to hear to protect these magnificent areas. I will go into some of her comments that were put in writing. We give the Secretary of the Interior the discretion, and we trust her to balance the economic development of our rich natural resources with the need to protect and conserve them. We are looking for a balance, and in my view, we have not seen that balance, either in Gale Norton's past or, frankly, in her answers, which I did not find to be terribly believable. And again, I will get into that. After more than a century of untempered resource extraction, we have learned we must restore some equilibrium to the management of our public lands and wildlife resources. The American people understand this. Poll after poll shows they overwhelmingly support environmental protection and restoration. They understand we are living in the most beautiful place and we have a responsibility to protect it. They are willing, for example, to conserve a little energy in order to spare pristine areas such as wildlife refuges. How people could say you can drill in a wildlife refuge, to me, just on its face, there is something that does not make sense about that. If it is a wildlife refuge, it is a refuge; it is not oil-drilling land. Why would it be called a refuge if it is not a refuge, a magnificent area where wildlife can live? So I think in this appointment President Bush, who for the most part I think made good, moderate appointments, has gone off the reservation. I also understand Ms. Norton will be confirmed. I hope she proves me wrong. I hope she listens to this and proves me wrong. But I can say, I am worried. And there is precedent for me to worry. If her nomination is approved, Ms. Norton will have authority to make decisions that determine the fate of some of California's treasures and America's treasures, places such as Yosemite National Park, the Presidio, Klamath National Wildlife Refuge, the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge, Death Valley National Park--you can see from the picture how beautiful this is--and the California Desert--and believe me, it is a precious environment; I have been there; I have seen--Point Reyes National Seashore--which is in my backyard; a magnificent area that needs to be protected--and the Santa Barbara coastline. I will get into that because there are 39 leases off the Santa Barbara coastline that are under threat of development. Ms. Norton's answer to that question leaves me very worried about what will happen. These unique ecological and cultural gems are fragile and vulnerable places. If they are mismanaged, the damage is likely to be irreparable. She will have responsibility for protection and recovery of California's most imperiled wildlife and fish species. Those endangered species, such as the California condor, will depend upon her for their continued survival. Taken in total, it is an awesome responsibility and one of great importance to my constituents who treasure California's unique environment. Let me say something about that. Oftentimes, people come to the floor and say: Well, you can't be an environmentalist because it means you don't want economic growth. You can't be an environmentalist because it means you will not have enough energy. We are going to hear this argument over and over and over, particularly about energy. I will talk a little bit about that. That is a false premise. Our economy depends on our environment in California. People come to our State and spend money to stay there because of our unique environment. They come to our ocean not to look at offshore oil drilling but to enjoy the beauty and the serenity of standing on that shoreline and looking at the vastness God gave us. To say that being an environmentalist is somehow not for a strong economy is a fact that is wrong on its face. The green industries that grow up around clean air and clean water, a clean environment, are industries we are not exporting across the world. To the people of this country, take heart. There are many in this body who understand this. After Ms. Norton's confirmation hearings, her responses to over 200 written questions and an in-depth look at her long and detailed history of work on these environmental issues--unfortunately, on the other side of most of them--it is clear to me that her record is remarkably consistent. One can say that about Ms. Norton; her record is remarkably consistent. She has spent her lifetime over the past 20 years focused on fighting against our essential Federal environmental laws and fighting for increased resource extraction from our public lands. That is her history. That is her life. Indeed, it is striking how few examples there are where Ms. Norton worked for the protection of the environment, despite the fact that her positions as Associate Solicitor at Interior and attorney general in Colorado required it. Let us look at some of her statements. On mining she said: The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act is not constitutional. This is the act that tries to at least repair the damage that is done after there is mining. On endangered species she said: The federal government has interpreted its habitat protection duties far too broadly. In other words, she doesn't think the Federal Government should have much say in habitat protection. On takings compensation: Compensation is desirable because it will have a chilling effect on federal environmental regulations. A chilling effect on Federal environmental regulations? We have a lot of important Federal environmental regulations: the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act--all Federal regulations--the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, the Endangered Species Act; these are important advances that our country has made. They have strong support. She likes things that give a chilling effect to Federal Government regulation. It gives me the chills to think that someone who feels this way is in charge of a lot of our laws. We see recurring themes, deeply held philosophies. These include vehement opposition to Federal environmental regulation, an unflagging commitment to the supremacy of property rights even if those rights lead to environmental destruction and harm everyone else. Ms. Norton has argued that ``control of land use and of mining is a traditional State function outside the scope of the commerce power.'' Thus, they are not activities that should be regulated by Federal land managers. She went so far as to argue that the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act is unconstitutional, as I have stated. Given these beliefs, it is doubtful that she will apply this law and implement it and make sure these conservation standards are applied in a meaningful way. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, how much time do I have for my presentation this morning?

Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Chair. She has raised strong complaints about the Endangered Species Act, another one of our bedrock laws that the Interior Secretary must implement. During her earlier tenure at the Department of the Interior, she complained the courts were providing an overly broad interpretation of the ESA's habitat provisions. She argued that the habitat protection standard should be extremely narrow so that only habitat that was immediately occupied by an endangered species would be protected. This interpretation would have ignored everything we know about the biological needs of species. It would have protected, for example, a bald eagle's nesting tree but allowed the rest of its surrounding habitat to be destroyed. With that kind of thinking, the bald eagle would never have been saved because you save the tree and then right around the tree you don't take any measures to protect the bald eagle. Let us show a picture of some of our habitat. We are talking about God's creations that we have a responsibility to protect. This is Mohave National Preserve Joshua trees. We have to move to protect them. Let us show some other habitat. Let us show the beautiful habitat of Alaska. Here we can see some of the magnificent caribou up in Alaska. We will be arguing a lot about that issue. We can see, if we are going to protect their habitat, we cannot just protect a small amount. It is as if saying that we are going to protect the air in one State and not in another one. We know the air moves; the animals move. We have to think about their whole habitat if we are going to protect them and not have this narrow view that Ms. Norton has articulated, which is that you should apply it very narrowly. She submitted an amicus brief in the Babbit v. Sweet Home case and argued that the Department of the Interior's protection of habitat on private lands was unconstitutional and constituted a taking. She argued for such a restricted interpretation of the law that it would have severely hindered our ability to protect habitat necessary for the recovery of the Endangered Species Act. On that case, her side lost. She is out of the mainstream of thought. Is it possible she could forget her lifetime of work against these things and suddenly become a fighter for the environment? I conclude no. Over and over again, Ms. Norton has advocated for ``the devolution of authority in the environmental area back to the States.'' In other words, she doesn't really see the need for Federal laws such as the National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA. While working in Colorado, she wrote of having ``to do battle'' with the Federal Government to wrestle control away from Washington and spoke with pride of her challenges to the Environmental Protection Agency regarding its interference in Colorado's air pollution programs. Oddly, she lamented that the end of the Civil War meant that ``we lost the idea that states were to stand against the Federal Government gaining too much power over our lives.'' There are a lot of things you could bring up to drive home a point, but to raise the Civil War is odd. She said that the end of the Civil War meant that ``we lost the idea that states were to stand against the Federal Government gaining too much power over our lives.'' She is way out there, in my opinion, because the people whom I represent--I think the vast majority of people--want to have a Clean Water Act, want to have a Safe Drinking Water Act, want to protect the magnificent species from destruction, and believe we have a God-given responsibility to do that. But she is way outside the mainstream. President Bush, for the vast majority, in my opinion--all but a couple--has chosen from the middle ground this time and reached over so far that there isn't much room on the other side and put this individual in the position where she can do harm. As a matter of fact, given her statements about the inappropriate role of the Federal Government in all of this protection, it is hard to understand how she would want to be a part of the Interior Department, much less be the head of it. It raises questions to me about her ability to adequately serve as an advocate from the Federal perspective in various environmental decision-making processes. Ms. Norton has a long history of association with organizations that promote ideas such as eliminating the Bureau of Land Management and selling off our national parks. Not surprisingly, these views have sparked strong opposition from the people of our country. I want to show you some of the groups that have opposed her nomination: the Natural Resources Defense Council, The Wilderness Society, Sierra Club, League of Conservation Voters, Republicans for Environmental Protection, Physicians for Social Responsibility, NAACP, AFL-CIO, Childhood Lead Action Project--I understand why they oppose her--Community Energy Project, the Network for Environmental and Economic Responsibility for the United States Church of Christ. This is a lightning rod nomination for people who care about protecting the environment. Why do we have to see their kind of nomination? We could have had a nomination for the President to ``unify us'' and not divide us. That is the reason I am against this nomination. Her lobbying to dissuade States from holding the lead industry accountable for the continued use of lead-based paint has brought criticism. I showed you that. The Childhood Lead Action Project, why would they get involved in this? Guess what we know. Lead-based paint causes mental retardation in children. This isn't a theory; it is a fact, and she led the charge to get the Federal Government out of regulating lead. You have to stand up at some point in your life and be held responsible and accountable. I think this is a moment when someone has to be held accountable. Everyone knows what a strong environmentalist I am and everyone knows how strong I am for a woman's right to choose. They know I have dedicated my life to do these two things. Suppose the laws were changed and suddenly a woman's right to choose was outlawed and I was put up for a position where I had to say enforce that law--put a woman in jail, put a doctor in jail. If this were to happen, people should come down to the floor and say Barbara Boxer is not the right person for that job; her whole life has been dedicated to making sure that a woman has a right to choose. Why would they give her this position? They would be right. I don't care if I said I will do it; I will enforce it. They know how strongly I feel. We know how strongly she feels about the interference of the Federal Government, what she considers to be interference in States rights in terms of protecting the environment. Why is this a good appointment? Again, you have to wonder why someone who has dedicated their adult life to opposing the Federal Government's involvement would even take this job. But we saw that happen before. His name was James Watt. We will get down to when someone says they will fully enforce the Nation's laws. Fine. But then when you ask her how she interprets those laws, you have to wonder because it is not the same interpretation as most people have. When I asked her how she felt about priority issues for California, if she would uphold the Bureau of Land Management's important decision to deny a permit to a gold mine, which everyone agreed would destroy Native American land and destroy the environment in California near the San Diego area, she basically passed on an answer. I asked her about how she felt about the much heralded new management plan for Yosemite National Park. She basically passed on an answer. The Klamath Wildlife Refuge, she passed on an answer. The Trinity River Restoration effort, she passed on an answer. She said she wasn't familiar with the issue; she had not taken a position. This troubles me since she worked at the Department of the Interior before. Yosemite should not be unfamiliar to someone who is to be head of the Department of the Interior and, yet, she passed on an answer on Yosemite. I would like to submit these answers for the Record at this time. I ask unanimous consent to have them printed in the Record.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, since last week, I have introduced several bills to help California deal with the electricity crisis and to help prevent such emergencies from occurring in other States in the future. Today, I am introducing another such bill--the State Electricity Reserve Fund Act. Current electricity generating capacity is tied to the expected need. Private generating companies have no incentive to build or maintain facilities that would generate capacity greater than what is needed to meet consumer demand. The plants would be idle most of the time. As a result, electricity shortages can occur. A lack of rainfall, which means that hydroelectric facilities cannot be operated as often, as well as unseasonably hot or cold temperatures, or rapid population increases in a State can all result in a demand for electricity unexpectedly exceeding supply. But with supply tied to expected demand, this can result in devastatingly large price increases for consumers and/or electricity shortages, which in turn could cause brownouts or blackouts. This is exactly what has happened in California. In the late 1980's, the California Public Utilities Commission required utilities to determine demand for new power generating capacity. At that time, the state recognized that generation needs could increase. However, the utilities argued that no new capacity would be needed in California until 2005. The utilities fought the attempt by the state to make them build more generating capacity. The utilities argued it was not needed. It turned out that it was needed. And whether the utilities should have known is another argument for another day. But the point here is that we cannot rely on the private sector to create a ``rainy day fund'' of electricity in the event of emergencies. So, the State Electricity Reserve Fund Act would create a revolving loan fund for states to use to help pay for the creation of an electricity reserve capacity. These loans could be used by states to build electricity generation facilities that would be controlled by the state and would be kept in reserve unless the Governor of the State declares an electricity emergency. Mr. President, it is not an unusual thing for the federal government to prepare for energy emergencies. We have the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in the case of oil shortages, and last year we established the Home Heating Oil Reserve for the Northeastern States. My bill is based on the same premise. True, we cannot store electricity like we can store petroleum and heating oil. But we can financially help States build a reserve facility, including a reserve of the fuel that is needed to generate electricity, to be used in the case of electricity emergencies. If such a reserve had existed in California, we would not have reached State III emergencies and rolling blackouts over the past couple of weeks. Mr. President, I think being prepared for emergencies is always a good policy. Helping States be prepared for electricity emergencies is no different. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Energy Conservation Tax Credit Act. As the electricity crisis in California continues, the entire nation needs to conserve electricity and improve energy efficiency. No solution to the energy problem is complete without addressing the need to improve the demand side of the equation. The Energy Conservation Tax Credit Act would encourage efforts at energy conservation through a refundable tax credit, grants to schools to retrofit buildings, and increased information to consumers on their use of electricity. The legislation would provide individuals with a refundable tax credit for the cost of energy conservation measures, such as ceiling insulation, weather stripping, water heater insulation blankets, low- flow showerheads, thermal doors and windows, clock thermostats, and external shading devices. The provisions eligible for the tax credit are passed on what was included in the California tax code from 1981 to 1986. The bill also includes a provision allowing this list to be expanded for other devices that the Secretary of Energy determines to be effective in conserving energy. The bill would also provide grants to school districts to retrofit public school buildings to increase energy efficiency and conservation. Many school buildings are old and do not use energy efficiently. According to the California Energy Commission, making energy efficient improvements can reduce a school's annual utility bills by 20 percent. Unfortunately, particularly in low-income districts, other priorities-- such as textbooks and teachers--often push the need to retrofit down on the priority list. My bill establishes a grand program to help local schools make these improvements. Finally, for consumer information, the bill would require utility companies to provide information on electricity bills regarding the amount of electricity used during peak and nonpeak hours and how much the consumer is paying during each period. This is not the complete answer to the energy situation in California. But, it is important, and would be helpful in reducing the nation's need for electricity.