Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating the endota High School chess team on winning the 2011 CalChess Premier Division State Championship in Santa Clara this April. The Mendota High School chess team worked tirelessly to become State champions and a source of great joy and pride to the people of Mendota and Fresno County. Mendota High School chess team coach, Vanness French, has been working with most of the members of the championship chess team since they were in the third grade. It was Coach French who gave the team its unique nickname, Knucklehead, a reference to the long-lasting cylinders on vintage Harley-Davidson motorcycles. The 2011 Mendota chess team certainly lived up to their expectations, never giving up as they defeated several higher rated opponents en route to claiming the State title. The members of the 2011 Mendota High School CalChess Premier Division State Championship include: Eduardo Alonso, Edwin Brioso, Joel Montalvo, Chrispen Reyes, Milton Arroyo, Luis Castillo, Julian Estrada, Lizzy Gonzales, Charle Ledesua, Sergio Mayares, Kevin Romero, Jessi Mendez, and Felipe Beltran. It is with great pride that I congratulate these students on an extraordinary accomplishment, and the hard work, dedication, and perseverance they showed in achieving it. As the Mendota chess team celebrates the 2011 CalChess Premier Division State Championship, I commend them a remarkable and memorable year and wish them continued success in their future endeavorse.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, as we recognize Older Americans Month this May it is important that we commit to meeting the needs of older Americans to live longer and healthier lives. Our aging population is expected to almost double in number, from 37 million people in 2009 to about 72 million by 2030. We must start now if we are going to adequately train the health care workforce to meet the needs of an aging America. If we fail to prepare, our Nation will face a crisis in providing care to these older Americans. Health care providers with the necessary training to give older Americans the best care are in critically short supply. In its landmark report, Retooling for an Aging America, the Institute of Medicine concluded that action must be taken immediately to address the severe workforce shortages in the care of older adults. According to the Institute of Medicine, in 2009 only about 7,100 U.S. physicians were certified geriatricians; 36,000 are needed by 2030. In addition, just 4 percent of social workers and only 3 percent of advanced practice nurses specialized in geriatrics in 2009. Recruitment and retention of direct care workers is also a looming crisis due to low wages and few benefits, lack of career advancement, and inadequate training. Preparing our workforce for the job of caring for older Americans is an essential part of ensuring the future health of our nation. Right now, there is a critical shortage of health care providers with the necessary training and skills to provide our seniors with the best possible care. This is a tremendously important issue for American families who are concerned about quality of care and quality of life for their older relatives and friends. It is clear that there is a need for federal action to address these issues, and that is why I am joined today by Senators Collins, Kohl and Sanders in reintroducing the Caring for an Aging America Act. This legislation would help attract and retain trained health care professionals and direct care workers dedicated to providing quality care to the growing population of older Americans by providing them with loan forgiveness and career advancement opportunities through the National Health Service Corps. Specifically, for health professionals with training in geriatrics or gerontology--including physicians, physician assistants, advance practice nurses, social workers, and psychologists--the legislation would link educational loan repayment to a commitment to serve in areas with a shortage of these important health professionals. Ensuring we have a well-trained health care workforce with the skills to care for our aging population is a critical investment in America's future. This legislation offers a modest but important step toward creating the future health care workforce that our Nation so urgently needs. I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that we meet our obligations to the seniors of our Nation to improve their care.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, as we recognize Older Americans Month this May it is important that we commit to meeting the needs of older Americans to live longer and healthier lives. Our aging population is expected to almost double in number, from 37 million people in 2009 to about 72 million by 2030. We must start now if we are going to adequately train the health care workforce to meet the needs of an aging America. If we fail to prepare, our Nation will face a crisis in providing care to these older Americans. Health care providers with the necessary training to give older Americans the best care are in critically short supply. In its landmark report, Retooling for an Aging America, the Institute of Medicine concluded that action must be taken immediately to address the severe workforce shortages in the care of older adults. According to the Institute of Medicine, in 2009 only about 7,100 U.S. physicians were certified geriatricians; 36,000 are needed by 2030. In addition, just 4 percent of social workers and only 3 percent of advanced practice nurses specialized in geriatrics in 2009. Recruitment and retention of direct care workers is also a looming crisis due to low wages and few benefits, lack of career advancement, and inadequate training. Preparing our workforce for the job of caring for older Americans is an essential part of ensuring the future health of our nation. Right now, there is a critical shortage of health care providers with the necessary training and skills to provide our seniors with the best possible care. This is a tremendously important issue for American families who are concerned about quality of care and quality of life for their older relatives and friends. It is clear that there is a need for federal action to address these issues, and that is why I am joined today by Senators Collins, Kohl and Sanders in reintroducing the Caring for an Aging America Act. This legislation would help attract and retain trained health care professionals and direct care workers dedicated to providing quality care to the growing population of older Americans by providing them with loan forgiveness and career advancement opportunities through the National Health Service Corps. Specifically, for health professionals with training in geriatrics or gerontology--including physicians, physician assistants, advance practice nurses, social workers, and psychologists--the legislation would link educational loan repayment to a commitment to serve in areas with a shortage of these important health professionals. Ensuring we have a well-trained health care workforce with the skills to care for our aging population is a critical investment in America's future. This legislation offers a modest but important step toward creating the future health care workforce that our Nation so urgently needs. I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that we meet our obligations to the seniors of our Nation to improve their care.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I honor students, teachers, administrators, librarians, and parents from Saul Martinez Elementary School in Mecca, CA, for taking a stand to resolve a serious pollution problem the community was facing. Together, they have demonstrated how important it is to speak up and be heard to make government officials aware of vital issues that affect their community. Like all Americans, the residents of Mecca, CA, have the right to expect that the air they breathe is clean, and that the Federal and State government will enforce the Nation's environmental laws to protect them from dangerous pollution. Unfortunately, some residents in Mecca became sick from overpowering air pollution coming from a nearby waste recycling facility. The noxious odors posed a public health risk to the two schools located near the site, Saul Martinez Elementary School and Mecca Elementary School. I became involved because local citizens, including teachers and students at the two schools, spoke out about the public health threat in Mecca that needed to be addressed immediately. I am so pleased that the Environmental Protection Agency stepped up its efforts to clean up the air pollution in and around the community of Mecca. I give special thanks to the residents of Mecca, including the students at Saul Martinez Elementary School, for speaking up and telling the truth about the troubling conditions nearby. It is an example to all Americans that we have a stake in our communities and that by fighting for what is right, we can make our country a better, safer and healthier nation.

Mrs. BOXER

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

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am going to speak a little bit about the PATRIOT Act, and then do I have to have consent to do anything else other than that?

Mrs. BOXER. OK. I ask unanimous consent that I be able to speak about two issues.

Mrs. BOXER. I just want to acknowledge the hard work of the chairman of the Intelligence Committee and the chairman of the Judiciary Committee on the PATRIOT Act and to state I am on an amendment Senator Leahy has authored which has bipartisan support. I think Senator Leahy's amendment puts a couple of checks and balances in this bill that I think are essential. But I hope we do not have delays because delays would cause trouble for law enforcement people and for the work we are doing to make sure we continue making progress against those who would harm this country. I fully agree with the statements we have the balance of security and liberty, and I think the Leahy amendment goes a long way toward that. But, again, we need to give law enforcement the tools they need. House Budget Mr. President, as we look at what is ahead for us this week, it is not only the PATRIOT Act, but we also are going to be looking for votes on a couple of different budget proposals, and I want to spend some time talking about the Republican budget that passed the House that was originally authored by Representative Paul Ryan. It sort of got to be known as the Ryan budget, but let's be very clear about this: It is no longer the Ryan budget. It is the Republican budget. This is why I say this. Out of all the Republicans in the House--and there are a lot of them over there; they run the place; well over 100-- every one of them voted for this budget except for, and on our side, not one Democrat. So let's be clear what a budget is. I served on the Budget Committee in the House and in the Senate. A budget is a very important document, whether you write it in your own home for your own family or you write it in the Senate of the United States. Why? Because in a budget you are looking at all your resources and what your priorities are. If you have an issue with spending--which a lot of us have in our homes, as well as having it right here; we know that; and certainly in my State--this is when the rubber meets the road and you have to say: What is important to us and what is less important? The questions you ask when you write a budget around here are: Are our children important? The answer is, yes. Is it important we have clean air to breathe? For me, absolutely. Should the water be pure? Should we make sure the environment is protected? Yes. Should we have a transportation system so we can move people and goods in this century and be the economic world leader? Yes. That is an investment. We go through the budget piece by piece and we decide what is crucial. Of course, we need a strong military. Having said that, some of us believe it is time to wind down the two wars we are in in Afghanistan and Iraq that is costing us $12 billion a month. We can use those funds back home and still keep the kind of counterterrorism forces we must keep, I believe, in the region and bring that money home. There is a lot of talk, a lot of words are thrown around about how to balance a budget. I have to say, I was fortunate enough to be here, thanks to the good people of my State, during the Clinton years, and we had similar issues. What were the issues? We were running in the red. We had a deficit, we had a debt, and we had to make sure the economy kept growing in a robust fashion. Do you know what we did? We sat around and said: These are the investments that are important to us. Today I would argue it is still education, it is infrastructure, it is the environment, it is clean energy. Those are what will move us forward. Over here are the issues where we look out and say: How can we get some revenue? One of the ways is what the Democrats said the other day. We said it is time to end corporate welfare for the biggest oil companies in the world that are--listen to this--two, three, and four on the Fortune 500 and are paying a lower tax rate than a nurse. Can I say that one more time? These big multinational oil companies that are charging us an arm and a leg are paying a lower tax rate than a nurse or a truckdriver or a firefighter in an effective tax rate. That is the truth. But yet and still, the power of those special interests looms over this Chamber, and we were not able to end that corporate welfare and start to reduce this deficit. So there are places to go to reduce the deficit. I say, start by eliminating corporate welfare for the people who do not need it. Start by asking billionaires and multimillionaires to pay their fair share. Then we do not have to hurt the people of this country, the great middle class of this country, the children. But every day in every way, that is what these battles are about. So today I want to talk about the Republican budget and just look at it from the standpoint of Medicare and look at it from the standpoint of seniors and, more specifically, look at it from the standpoint of women on Medicare who make up 56 percent of those on Medicare. Thank goodness the people in this country are tuning in to this debate. They are tuning in. A lot of what we say here just flies over the country and no one pays attention. It is complex, it is wonky, and the rest. This is an easy one. The Republican budget kills Medicare as we know it. Pretty simple. People are asking themselves across this Nation: Do they want to kill Medicare as I know it? Senator Mikulski, who has just arrived on the Senate floor, has organized the women. In the next 5 minutes I will summarize what I said and turn to her. The Republican budget is a disaster for seniors and for those on Medicare. It is worse than a disaster. Newt Gingrich said, 15 years ago: Let Medicare wither on the vine. That means starving it. The Republican budget just kills it outright. They lost patience with that idea. The Republican House-passed budget brings a devastating cost to seniors for Medicare. Let me show you the cost. Listen to this: The average income of senior women in this country in a year is $14,430. The health care cost they will have to pay under the Ryan budget is almost all that money, $12,500. So the Ryan Republican budget devastates Medicare and says to a senior woman, who makes $14,000 a year, that her health care costs are going to cost her $12,000. What is she going to do with the other $2,000? Well, that would be probably, if she is fortunate, maybe 3 months' rent; in California, 1 month's rent. Then what does she do? Starve? I will tell you what she will do. She will not have health coverage. This is America under the Republican vision? Going back to the days where our senior citizens had no dignity? I just cannot imagine it. I cannot imagine it. The woman earns $14,000. She is supposed to spend $12,000 on health care. Forget it. She is not going to do it. Who in their right mind would ask a woman--a senior woman, who worked and played by the rules, who more than likely is a widow, who is living off Social Security--who in their right mind would ask her to face double--double--the cost of health care she now pays? I will give you the answer. House Republicans. That is what they voted for. I am not making it up. This is what they voted for. Now you have people running away from it, running toward it. They do not know which way to go on it. But do you know what. When we vote, I hope they run far away from this because this is a disaster. Let me show you another chart. This Republican budget ends Medicare as we know it, and it takes the benefit away from the senior and gives it straight to this guy. Who is this guy? He is very happy. Behind him is a chart that says: ``Health Care Profits.'' On the other side it talks about the CEO of the company and his income. The House Republican budget takes the benefit away from the senior and gives it straight to the insurance company. Imagine. Do you know what this guy makes, the average CEO of a health insurance company? Mr. President, remember, I told you the average senior woman makes $14,000 a year. He makes $12.2 million a year. Oh, hooray for the Republicans. They are taking a benefit away from a woman who has lived by the rules, who has raised a family and stood by that family, and in her golden years they take away her money and they give it to this fat cat over here. It makes me ill. But I better watch out because the next thing you know, they will take away my health care, and where will I go? Profits in these companies are up 41 percent from the previous year. Every once in a while a political party stands for something that shows who they are, and I think we are seeing it here. They voted to continue corporate welfare for the biggest multinational oil companies that are just running to the bank, and their CEOs make more than this guy by a few million. Now, this week, we are voting on their budget, which gives more to the CEO of an insurance company and steals it away from the average senior woman. The last chart I am going to show is this one: There is a health care benefit in place for senior citizens who are on Medicare. By the way, I was very disturbed when we voted for it because in that bill, at the insistence of the Republicans, we told Medicare they cannot negotiate for reasonable drug prices, and that is the way it went down. It was very sad. Having said that, we have a benefit for senior citizens now. One of the leaders in trying to make sure they get their full benefit has been Senator Stabenow, who is joining us now in the Chamber. So I will close with this: What we did in our health care reform budget is to say that seniors will now be covered for basically all of their health care costs. The Republican budget cancels that out, and they now say seniors have to pay for all of their prescription drugs. Even with their insurance, there will be this period of time: the uncovered benefit called the doughnut hole. People call it different things. That means immediately--if the Republican budget passed now--my seniors in California, who are in that category getting help on their prescription drugs, 400,000 of them, would have to pay $9,000 more over the next decade--$9,000 more--for their prescription drugs. Mr. President, I have given you just a bit of the picture of what the Ryan budget does. I have just focused on the Medicare piece. That whole budget--the Republican budget, started by Ryan, embraced by the Republicans--is a disaster for seniors, for women, for children, and it is a hot time in the old town tonight for big CEOs of health insurance companies. That is what it is, and we should bring it down. I am happy to now yield for Senator Mikulski, who will have the time in her own right. I say to Senator Mikulski, thank you very much for your leadership on this issue.

Mrs. BOXER

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

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the remarkable accomplishments of Granada Hills Charter High School's Academic Decathlon team, which won the 2011 Academic Decathlon and its first national championship. Members of the national championship team include: Austin Kang, Harsimar Dhanoa, Elysia Eastty, Joon Lee, Shagun Goyal, Riki Higashida, Eugene Lee, Sindhura Seeni, and Celine Ta. The team is coached by Matt Arnold, Nick Weber, and Spencer Wolf. Each year, hundreds of high schools throughout the Nation compete for the honor of becoming Academic Decathlon national champions. This year, Granada Hills Charter High School earned the distinction of winning its first national championship, as well as California's 9th consecutive national title and 18th overall championship. Competing in an Academic Decathlon is a daunting task. Students spend many hours studying, practicing, and competing, often away from their family and friends. The Academic Decathlon's intense 2-day national final competitions include testing at seven different events, speeches, essay writing, and interviewing exercises. As the Granada Hills community celebrates the hard work and achievement of the Granada Hills Decathlon team, I invite all of my colleagues to join me in congratulating California's Granada Hills Charter High School Academic Decathlon team on becoming the 2011 National Academic Decathlon Champions.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I welcome the students from the 6th grade class at Mecca Elementary School, who are visiting Washington, DC. I am particularly honored to have these students visit the U.S. Capitol because they know firsthand how important it is to speak up and be heard to make government officials aware of vital issues that affect their community. Like all Americans, the residents of Mecca, CA, have the right to expect that the air they breathe is clean, and that the Federal and State government will enforce the Nation's environmental laws to protect them from dangerous pollution. Unfortunately, some residents in Mecca became sick from overpowering air pollution coming from a nearby waste recycling facility. The noxious odors posed a public health risk to the two schools located near the site, Mecca Elementary School and Saul Martinez Elementary School. I became involved because local citizens, including teachers and students at the two schools, spoke out about the public health threat in Mecca that needed to be addressed immediately. I am so pleased that the Environmental Protection Agency stepped up its efforts to clean up the air pollution in and around the community of Mecca. I give special thanks to the residents of Mecca, including the students at Mecca Elementary School, for speaking up and telling the truth about the troubling conditions nearby. It is an example to all Americans that we have a stake in our communities and that by fighting for what is right, we can make our country a better, safer and healthier nation.

Mrs. BOXER

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

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, it is my privilege, it is my honor, to support Goodwin Liu, a Californian--and a brilliant Californian--who has been nominated by the President to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. And what a fine nomination this is. I thank the President for his belief in Goodwin, and his, I think, amazing perception that this is a young man--and he is young, he is about 40. This is a young man who is just exceptional, is a perfect example of the American dream, and someone who has worked so hard to put himself into this position where he was nominated for this great honor. I want to show folks a picture of Goodwin. He is a very special and talented person. He has had a long struggle with this nomination, which we will talk about. I also wish to thank, of course, Chairman Leahy for working hard to bring this nomination to the Senate floor, and Senator Feinstein, my colleague, for her hard work in the committee and her leadership in helping to shepherd this nomination in the Senate. This vote is not only historic, because Goodwin will make history--if he gets this vote. This vote is long overdue. First, let me talk about why it is historic. It is historic because if we get the 51 votes we need today, Professor Liu will be one of only two Asian Americans currently serving as a Federal appellate judge in the United States. There is currently only one Asian American among the 160 active judges on the Federal Courts of Appeals, and there is no active Asian American judge on the Ninth Circuit, which has jurisdiction over an area that is home to more than 40 percent of our Nation's Asian American population. Let me repeat that. There is no active Asian American judge on the Ninth Circuit, which has jurisdiction over an area that is home to more than 40 percent of our Nation's Asian American population. The beauty of our great Nation--one of the beauties--is our great diversity. America is great because we are representatives of so many faiths and so many ethnic backgrounds. We know all of our institutions, whether it is here in the Senate or anywhere, all of our institutions do better when they have a diversity of views and diversity. Clearly, when someone as brilliant as Goodwin gets this nomination, we should be so proud in this body. We should be joining hands over party lines. We should be pleased that our court would have such a brilliant member. Professor Liu was originally nominated in February 2010 for a judicial emergency seat, one that has been vacant since January 2009. So we have had a judicial emergency, and yet we have had a hard time getting this vote to the floor. Chief Justice Roberts called on Senators not to play politics with our nominees. He warned that ``delays in filling vacancies have created acute difficulties in some judicial districts.'' Undoubtedly, the Ninth Circuit certainly is one of the jurisdictions that Chief Justice referred to because the Ninth Circuit is the Nation's largest and busiest appellate court in the country, accounting for over 20 percent of all new appellate cases in the country, according to court statistics. Now, I have said--and I heard Senator Cardin, and I thought he just did a beautiful job of laying out why he is supporting Goodwin Liu. But I also heard some other comments that did not connect to Goodwin Liu. I heard comments that just did not fit what Goodwin Liu has said about his role as a judge. So I wanted to put up a couple of the quotes directly from Professor Liu and what he said about his role as a judge. He said: I think the role of the judge is to be an impartial, objective, and neutral arbiter of specific cases and controversies that come before him or her. And the way that that process works is through absolute fidelity to the applicable precedents and the language of the laws, statues, regulations that are at issue in the case. Another statement by Professor Liu I wanted to share with you. He said: If I were fortunate enough to be confirmed in this process, it would not be my role to bring any particular theory of constitutional interpretation to the job of an intermediate appellate judge. The duty of a circuit judge is to faithfully follow the Supreme Court's instructions on matters of Constitutional interpretation, not any particular theory. And so that is exactly what I would do, is I would apply the applicable precedents to the facts of each case. It could not be clearer. So if you hear any colleague of mine saying something else about how Professor Liu views the role of a judge in this particular appellate area, just refer them to these quotes. Professor Liu has sat before the Senate Judiciary Committee twice for more than 5 hours--5 hours--answering any and all questions posed to him during the hearing. He has also answered numerous written questions from committee members. He has been voted out of the Judiciary Committee three times. I just ask the American people, as they tune in to this debate--they may not be familiar with the confirmation process--if they think it is fair for someone like Professor Liu--and we will put his picture back up so we personalize this--this young man, this husband, this father, this teacher, to have to sit for all of those hours, and then to finally be brought to the floor, after the third time we voted it--that is why I praised Senator Leahy for doing this again because sometimes there are reasons that we go back and back and back. There are reasons of fairness and justice and because we do not want to miss an opportunity to put someone like Professor Goodwin Liu on the bench. Now, I will tell you, there have been 12 months of attacks on Goodwin Liu, misrepresentations, unfounded distortions of his record. I want the American people to know this. Politics is tough. I can tell you, running four times for Senate, it is tough. It is brutal. It is ugly. But there is no reason to turn that venom on a nominee like this, and it is offensive to me. Through it all, Professor Liu could have said: You know what, I cannot take this. I do not need this. My kids do not need this. My family does not need this. But he showed courage and character and dignity. I was so pleased when President Obama nominated Goodwin Liu to serve on the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals because Goodwin Liu is considered one of the brightest legal scholars not just in California but in the Nation. He is a respected authority on constitutional law. At UC Berkeley's Boalt Hall School of law, where he is an associate dean and a professor, he is admired widely for his writings and his devotion to his students. To Professor Liu, if you are watching these proceedings, I am proud of you. To Professor Liu's wife, Ann, and his two small children, Violet and Emmett, I say thank you for your patience and your unyielding support. You should be so proud of your dad. Let me tell you a little bit about Goodwin Liu's background. He was born in Augusta, GA, the son of Taiwanese immigrants who came to this country to practice medicine in underserved areas. In 1977, they moved to Sacramento, where his parents were primary care physicians for over 20 years. In Goodwin, his parents instilled both perseverance and a strong work ethic, even leaving math problems on the kitchen table every day of the summer to supplement his school work. As a high school student, he pulled all-nighters studying the dictionary to expand his vocabulary and raise his SAT scores. His hard work paid off, propelling him to Stanford University, where he graduated Phi Beta Kappa, and then to Oxford University, where he was a Rhodes scholar. I say to my colleagues on the other side, who often say it ought to be the results of your life that count, it ought to be your record that counts, it ought to be your qualifications that count--Stanford University, Phi Beta Kappa, Oxford University Rhodes scholar. Liu's experience at Stanford and Oxford in student government, as a summer school teacher for low-income youth, codirecting a K-12 youth education conference, and studying philosophy encouraged him to pursue the law and public service. In fact, Liu spent the next 2 years at the Corporation for National Service helping to launch the groundbreaking AmeriCorps program. He led the agency's effort to build community service programs at colleges and universities throughout the country, and he traveled to over 30 States to encourage service among students. The spark of public service and the law clearly ignited, Liu then went on to attend Yale Law School. His stellar record of achievements continued at Yale, where Liu, along with a classmate, won the prize for the best team argument in the moot court competition. Several of his papers won awards, and he earned prestigious clerkships on both the court of appeals and the Supreme Court. What more does anyone want from a nominee? I can't even imagine, frankly, even matching this. In between the clerkships, Liu again chose public service, working at the U.S. Department of Education, helping to implement a congressional appropriation to help turn around low-performing schools. Former South Carolina Governor Richard Riley, who was Secretary of Education at the time, called Liu a `` `go-to' person''--in his words--``for important projects and complex issues because of Liu's ability to see the big picture while also mastering the details of legal and policy problems.'' What else do you want in a judge? He has an ``ability to see the big picture while also mastering the details of legal and policy problems.'' That is a quote from former South Carolina Governor Richard Riley. After completing his Supreme Court clerkship, Liu joined the litigation practice at O'Melveny & Myers, working on a wide range of business matters while maintaining an active pro bono practice. So you have a person who worked in government, private practice, and in education. He earned high praise from his peers, including Walter Dellinger, chair of O'Melveny's appellate practice, who said Liu was ``widely respected in law practice for his superb legal ability, his sound judgment and warm collegiality.'' Then Liu joined the faculty at UC Berkeley's Boalt Hall School of Law in 2003 and quickly established himself as an outstanding teacher as well as a constitutional law and education law and policy expert. Think about this. This is a young life, with all these experiences, including raising a family. In the classroom, Liu is popular and well regarded. His introductory constitutional law course is consistently one of the most oversubscribed at Boalt. They want to hear him. They want to be in his presence to understand how the Constitution works and why this country is so special. In 2009, Liu received UC Berkeley's Distinguished Teaching Award, the university's most prestigious teaching excellence award, and was selected by that year's graduating class to be commencement speaker. Students often remark on Liu's efforts to illustrate the impact of the law on everyday life. As anyone who has taken his con law class knows, to demonstrate that principle, Liu uses a wedding photo that shows him and his new bride, Ann O'Leary, the Irish American daughter of a social worker and union leader from Orono, ME. The two married in Virginia, a State that restricted interracial marriages until the Supreme Court invalidated the provision in the landmark 1967 case Loving v. Virginia. Berkeley Law School Dean Christopher Edley describes Professor Liu this way: Goodwin Liu is an outstanding teacher, a brilliant scholar, and an exceptional public servant. Professor Liu is widely respected and has tremendous support across the legal spectrum and from both sides of the political aisle. I want to read what Ken Starr said about Goodwin Liu. Remember Ken Starr, the former Whitewater prosecutor? This is what he said. He wrote this with Professor Amar in an op-ed piece that ran: In our view, the traits that should weigh most heavily in the evaluation of an extraordinarily qualified nominee, such as Goodwin, are professional integrity and the ability to discharge faithfully an abiding duty to follow the law. Because Goodwin possesses those qualities to the highest degree, we are confident that he will serve on the Court of Appeals not only fairly and competently, but with great distinction. We support and urge his speedy confirmation. I point out to my Republican friends that Ken Starr is one of your heroes. Come on, listen to what he says about Goodwin Liu. Don't come to the floor and say things about Goodwin that aren't so. Please come to your senses about Goodwin Liu. There is another supporter I want to talk about too. This is former Bush administration counsel, Richard Painter: I have done my share of vetting judicial candidates and fighting the confirmation wars. I didn't know much about Liu before his nomination, but I became intrigued by the attention the nomination generated, and I wondered if his Republican critics were deploying the same tactics Democrats used to attack Republican nominees. They were. If anything, the attacks on Liu have been even more unfair. Based on my own review of his record, I believe it is not even a close question that Liu is an outstanding nominee whose views fall well within the legal mainstream. That conclusion is shared by leading conservatives who are familiar with Liu's record. We even have a quote from Clint Bolick of the Goldwater Institute, one of the most conservative institutes. They endorsed Liu. This is what they said: Because of his fresh, independent thinking and intellectual honesty, as well as scholarly credentials and experience, he will serve with distinction on this important court. If that is not enough for my Republican friends, I have some more. I have former Republican Congressman Bob Barr. He offered praise of Professor Liu's ``commitment to the Constitution and to a fair criminal justice system.'' Barr also noted that ``[Liu's] views are shared by many scholars, lawyers and public officials from across the ideological spectrum.'' Tom Campbell of California, a former Republican Congressman--someone who actually attempted to run against me a couple of times for the Senate--wrote that ``Goodwin will bring scholarly distinction and a strong reputation for integrity, fair-mindedness, and collegiality to the Ninth Circuit.'' Reflecting on Liu's many years of work in serving the public interest, Campbell also said, ``I am not surprised that [Liu] has again been called to public service.'' Yes, he has been called and nominated, but he won't be able to continue his extraordinary work unless we get 51 votes here. I know there is some letter that is circulating that attacks Goodwin Liu again. I hope my colleagues will read not just what I am saying but what leading Republicans are saying about how talented Goodwin Liu is. Every single thing the man has done has turned to gold--every single thing he has done. He is best at everything he does. Why would we lose this opportunity for the American people to have him serve them in this important capacity? I ask that rhetorically. I cannot imagine why anybody would vote no. Here is another one. Professor Liu has even drawn praise from Brian Jones, who served as General Counsel at the Department of Education after Liu's tenure there. This is what Brian Jones, the General Counsel at the Department of Education, said: During [2001 abd 2002], and even after he became a law professor in 2003, [Goodwin] volunteered his time and expertise on several occasions to help me and my staff sort through legal issues he worked on during the previous administration. In those interactions, Goodwin's efforts were models of bipartisan cooperation. He brought useful knowledge and careful lawyerly perspectives that helped our administration to achieve its goals. But I am convinced, based on his record and my own experiences with him, that he is thoughtful, fair-minded and well qualified to be an appellate judge. I don't know why the Republicans filibustered this nomination. I don't know why they filibustered this. I don't understand it. Let's look at some of the organizations that back Goodwin. Of course, those in the Asian American community are so proud, as they should be and as I am, because Goodwin is a Californian by choice. In an op-ed published just today, former Secretary Norm Mineta, the first Asian Pacific American member of a President's Cabinet; that is, the Bush Cabinet, wrote that ``Professor Liu is an extremely well- qualified nominee who has the intellectual capacity, experience, temperament and integrity to be an excellent jurist.'' Mineta went on to warn that ``if Liu is not confirmed, Asian Pacific Americans may be left with the impression that there continues to be a glass ceiling blocking Asian Pacific Americans from top-level leadership positions regardless of their qualifications.'' Again, Norm Mineta--and anybody who knows Norm knows what a wonderful human being he is. George W. Bush chose Norm Mineta, who is a Democrat, to be the Secretary of Transportation. Norm Mineta says that because Professor Liu is so qualified and has so much intellectual capacity, such great experience, such great temperament, and so much integrity, he warns that ``if Liu is not confirmed, Asian Pacific Americans may be left with the impression that there continues to be a glass ceiling blocking Asian Pacific Americans from top-level leadership positions regardless of their qualifications.'' We also have a quote from the Committee of 100, a national nonprofit, nonpartisan membership organization that addresses issues concerning Sino-U.S. relations affecting the Chinese American community. They wrote that ``[Liu's] ascension to the bench would signal that talented people of all backgrounds are integral to our justice system.'' What we do here matters. It matters whom we send to these important positions. We have someone here who will break down barriers, but, do you know what, that would not be enough. He has to be great, he has to be outstanding, and he is all those things. Yet we are very nervous about getting 51 votes. We are very nervous that politics is being played. We don't know what is going to happen at the end of the day. That is why I am taking this time, because I want my colleagues to know that if they cast an ``aye'' vote, it should bring a smile to their faces, and they should feel good in their hearts and their minds that they are doing the right thing. Twenty-five prominent Asian-Pacific Americans who serve as general counsel to Fortune 1000 companies and other large companies wrote: Professor Liu has earned praise from conservatives and progressives alike for his sense of fairness, open- mindedness, and integrity. His intellect and qualifications are beyond dispute. Indeed, Professor Liu has been rated unanimously ``well-qualified'' by the American Bar Association. They go on: It is worth noting that Professor Liu, if confirmed, would become the only Asian Pacific American active appellate court judge in the Ninth Circuit, and only the second Asian Pacific American active appellate court judge nationwide. Especially given the large number of Asian Pacific Americans in California, Hawaii, and other states, covered by the Ninth Circuit-- And I said before I think it is 40 percent of Asian Americans who live in this particular area that the court covers-- the lack of an Asian Pacific American judge in this circuit is striking. We feel that Professor Liu would serve our country well and with distinction. Professor Liu has drawn law enforcement support, including the California Correctional Peace Officers Association, as well as the National Asian Peace Officers Association, which noted that Professor Liu has ``earned the respect of [its] members and the large audience of the law enforcement community.'' David Lum, the president of National Asian Peace Officers Association, went on to compliment Liu as ``a person of integrity, dedication, passion, enthusiasm, and law and order.'' Liu has also received support from the business community, including from the prominent business executives with whom Liu served on the Stanford University board of trustees. In a letter of support, Liu's fellow trustees wrote the following: Across a wide range of complex issues, Goodwin routinely asks thoughtful and incisive questions. He is good at thinking independently and zeroing in on important issues that need attention. Even in a room full of highly accomplished leaders, Goodwin is impressive. He is insightful, constructive, and a good listener. Moreover, he possesses a remarkably even temperament; his demeanor is unfailingly respectful and open-minded, never dogmatic or inflexible. Given these qualities, it was no surprise that he was asked to chair the board's Special Committee on Investment Responsibility after serving just one year of his five-year term. Again and again, there is a thread running through this man's life at 40. That is how old he is, 40--40 years old. Everything this man has done, this young man has been unbelievably--I want to say unimaginable at his age that he has done all he has done. They continue: In short, Goodwin's strengths are exactly what we expect in a judge: objectivity, independence, collegiality-- This is what the Stanford trustees say-- respect for differing views, sound judgment. Goodwin possesses these qualities on top of the brilliant legal acumen that is well-established by his professional record and the judgment of those most familiar with his scholarly work. It goes on and on. The President of Stanford University, along with two presidents emeritus, wrote to endorse Liu's nomination. They said that Liu ``has epitomized the goal of Stanford's founders, which was to promote the public welfare by exercising an influence on behalf of humanity and civilization, teaching the blessings of liberty regulated by law, and inculcating love and reverence for the great principles of government as derived from the inalienable rights of man to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.'' This eloquence that is coming out of people's mouths about Goodwin-- honestly, I have stood here many times, and I have spoken on behalf of many nominees. I honestly have not had a situation where the eloquence and passion of the supporters has come through as it has for this young man. He is a blessing, honestly. I feel at this moment we need to back him--all of us--and bring this country together around someone who epitomizes the American dream. I want to speak about, as I wind down, newspapers across the country that weighed in to support Liu's nomination. The Washington Post remarked that: Mr. Liu has sterling credentials that earned him the highest rating from the American Bar Association. And there have been no allegations of impropriety to disqualify him from serving. The brilliant professor [they call him], who just turned 40 in October, testified that he would not allow his academic musings to interfere with the duties of a lower- court judge to follow precedent. He should be confirmed and given the opportunity to demonstrate that he can do that. I was going to ask unanimous consent because I know Senator Tester has been waiting for 40 minutes--I ask the Senator, does he need about 5 or 7 minutes in morning business?

Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Tester be able to speak for 7 minutes in morning business before we get to Senator Grassley; is that acceptable?

Mrs. BOXER. I am almost done.

Mrs. BOXER. I am closing in the next 2 minutes. The Sacramento Bee noted that Liu would add luster to any court. The Los Angeles Times joined the New York Times in endorsing his confirmation. We heard from Professor Liu when I opened, and I am going to close by saying this: When we ask people in this country to give back to this Nation and they step to the plate and they want to give their talent to this Nation and they are supremely qualified and they bring with them mainstream views, mainstream endorsements, bipartisan endorsements from the progressive community to Ken Starr, for goodness' sake, give this man an up-or-down vote and do not say that you believe that judges deserve an up-or-down vote when you are in the majority and suddenly say they do not deserve it now. I hope we will see the 60 votes for cloture and then the 51 votes for confirmation. I am privileged to have had this opportunity to share the story of Professor Goodwin Liu with my colleagues. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, what is the order?

Mrs. BOXER. Is there a specific time limit on each individual Senator?

Mrs. BOXER. I ask for such time as I may consume, probably less than 15 minutes.

Mrs. BOXER. I want to say that the Senator from Alaska does an excellent job of representing the oil companies. She puts forward the oil companies' arguments magnificently. She is very good at it. She was an economics major, and so was I. She said what she learned in her time, and let me tell you what I learned. I learned that corporate welfare is wrong, that corporate welfare to companies that are on the Fortune 500 list is particularly wrong. ExxonMobil, No. 2 on the Fortune 500--excuse me if I do not cry for Exxon. Forgive me if I shed no tears for Chevron--they are No. 3--and forgive me, ConocoPhillips. You are No. 4, but you are working on it. I tell you whom I shed tears for--my people at home who are having to pay ridiculous prices and who also have to face a Federal deficit and are looking to us for leadership here. And leadership requires us to say: How long do you have to give corporate welfare to oil companies that have been getting it for 100 years? Count them--100 years. And they are so huge. They are multinational. They are multibillion. I will get into what their people earn, what their CEOs earn in a minute. So I learned that corporate welfare is bad. It distorts the market. And to compare the tax deductions Big Oil has with the home mortgage deduction gets right under my skin because the people who benefit from the home mortgage deduction are primarily the middle class of this country. So do not come here and compare home mortgage deductions with corporate welfare for the biggest companies in our country. When are the defenders of Big Oil going to decide how much corporate welfare is enough? When are the defenders of Big Oil going to answer this question: How high does the deficit have to go before you are willing to step up to the plate and end corporate welfare for the biggest corporations that are cleaning our clocks all the way to the bank? I would hope the time is now. I am going to try to lay out in a series of charts why I believe that. So let's go with the first one. First of all, we see the first quarter profits: ExxonMobil, $10.7 billion; as a percentage increase from last year, 69 percent. I am supposed to cry for them. I don't think so. BP, with all of their troubles, corporate profit, $7.1 billion--this is just in the first quarter--up 17 percent; Shell, up 30 percent; ConocoPhillips, up 44 percent; and Chevron, up 74 percent. Yet Big Oil has the defenders on this floor saying: Wah wah. We cannot allow them to pay their fair share. Well, I tell you, we have a deficit problem. If we cannot ask the wealthy few in this country to do their share, I do not know where we are headed. Let's cry for Big Oil--or let's not. Mr. President, $14.5 million is the average compensation for the big five oil company CEOs. That is 307 times the average salary of a firefighter, it is 273 times the average salary of a teacher, it is 263 times the average salary of a police officer, and it is 218 times the average salary of a nurse. So we actually have people in this Senate coming here not only to defend these corporations but the CEOs who are crying to us that their companies cannot pay a few dollars more to help us solve our deficit problem. Do you know what? We could lose this vote. They are filibustering it. We need 60. Let the American people see who is on their side. Well, who is on the side of these corporations? The effective tax rate for Exxon is 18 percent on their $7.7 billion in income. A family of two teachers has an effective tax rate of 19 percent. Can you believe this? We have people coming to this floor crying for the oil companies when they pay an effective tax rate less than a family of two teachers. ExxonMobil, 18 percent on their billions; a family of a truckdriver and a dental hygienist, 19 percent. So the effective tax rate of these humongous, multibillion-dollar, multinational corporations is less than our middle-class families, and people are coming here to cry tears for these oil companies, and the companies were whining in front of that committee. I mean, they may be very nice people, but they are out of touch. I agree with that. I think it was Senator Rockefeller who made that statement. What we could do with the $21 billion over the next 10 years. We can continue these handouts, this corporate welfare to Big Oil, or we could fund the entire COPS Program for all of those 10 years and we could also provide afterschool care for 2 million kids. So I am asking people, would you rather have a cop on the beat at home and know our police are out there and they are protecting our families, would you rather make sure 2 million kids are kept off the street and have quality afterschool programs, or would you rather continue corporate welfare for these five corporations in the Fortune 500--three of the American companies are in the Fortune 500. We could also provide 10 years of Federal Emergency Management Administration disaster relief. We are looking across this great Nation of ours, and we are seeing flooding, evacuations, sand-bagging--all of the problems--typhoons, hurricanes, and in California we know about earthquakes. FEMA is running out of money. Would you rather make sure they are ready for the next disaster or would you rather continue corporate welfare for these five corporations? You have to answer that question, America, because it does not look as though we are going to win this one. These are issues you have to decide when you vote. That is the beauty of this country--people make a decision when they vote. If they agree with the Senator from Alaska that these five big oil companies still need corporate welfare, they know whom to vote for. What could we do with $21 billion over the next 10 years? We could fund the Ryan White Program, which handles the AIDS epidemic at the level the President requested, and get rid of that dreadful disease. You heard the sort of veiled threats from my colleague from Alaska, an oil State. I fully respect her; I just disagree with her entirely. But she has the absolute right to say what she said and believe what she said. I think it is parroting what the oil companies say. That is fine. That is her option. But the Joint Economic Committee said that repealing the oil subsidies would have no effect on consumer energy prices in the immediate future. So all of those threats that they are going to raise prices--I ask you rhetorically, Mr. President, for all of the years they have been getting all these subsidies, have they ever lowered their prices? No, they have not. The Congressional Research Service said that a small increase in taxes would be unlikely to reduce oil output and hence increase petroleum prices. So the experts are saying that nothing in this bill to make them pay their fair share is going to adversely impact gasoline prices. The former CEO of Shell Oil said that with high oil prices, such subsidies are not necessary. He said that in February--their own people. Their own people. Yet, when they come to the committee, they are all whining about it. Then you hear from those from the oil-producing States: Well, we do not have enough rigs in operation. This administration is not drilling. Excuse me. There are such things called the facts. Let's look at them in this chart. We see more drilling than ever before. This administration is moving forward. The oil companies have over 50 million acres of leased land and offshore that they can drill on today, and all they want is more, more, more. They want to come to California, drill off our pristine coast, and threaten tens of thousands of jobs we have in our fishing industry, our tourism industry. They do not have to do that. They are sitting on these leases. They are drilling many more. So let's just have the facts be part of the debate. That is what I am trying to do today with these charts, is to lay out the facts. Now, how do we reduce gas prices? I had a press conference actually in an independent gas station last month. The independent gas station owner was wonderful. He said: I agree with you, Senator. There I was, coming out with this plan. Here is how we can reduce gas prices: End Big Oil subsidies and take that money--some of it--reduce the deficit, and take the rest and invest in alternatives so we have alternative clean fuels and batteries that can run our vehicles so we do not have to have these automobiles that are gas guzzlers. Crack down on fraud and speculation. A lot of this increase is due to that. Use it or lose it, say to the oil companies. You own all of these leases; drill on those leases. Release oil from the SPR. We know the Strategic Petroleum Reserve has a tremendous amount of oil. This is the time to tap it. The last time we did it, prices went down 30 percent. Invest in clean energy and efficiency. Reduce exports. Can you believe that the producers right here in America are exporting their oil--some of their oil? Keep it home. We need it here. So that is a plan we can take. But let me conclude my remarks this way. In the land of the free and the home of the brave, we need to have some fairness in our lives. It is crucial. All the talk about competition--we want competition. You do not have competition. When you are looking at these huge companies--and my colleague from Alaska talked about comparing them to these little bitty solar companies that are just getting started. When companies are just getting started with a new technology, that is one set of circumstances, but when you give these tax subsidies to Big Oil, you distort the price of the commodity. You distort the price of the commodity and you bring it down. Therefore, it is anticompetitive with other sources of energy. This is the moment. We are looking to cut the deficit. We are looking for ways to bring billions of dollars home so that we can get out of the red. What could be more perfect than this opportunity in the name of fairness, in the name of competition, in the name of deficit reduction, frankly, in the name of the consumer? Let's have some fairness. Let's not come down to the floor and compare these corporate giveaways to the mortgage deduction our middle class so needs. I thank you very much for this opportunity. I hope we will have the courage to vote to end this corporate welfare. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all the time not used be charged equally to both sides.

Mrs. BOXER. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business for debate only until 5 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may speak for up to 20 minutes, followed immediately by Senator Isakson for such time as he may consume.