Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I also wish to display the public health organizations that oppose the Murkowski resolution. We have to decide whom we want to listen to. Do we want to listen to big oil or politicians or do we want to listen to public health organizations that oppose the Murkowski resolution? I ask the American people to determine which side they are on--the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Children's Environmental Health Network, the American Nurses Association, the American Lung Association, the American Public Health Association, the National Association of County and City Health Officials, Trust for America's Health, Physicians for Social Responsibility, National Environmental Health Association, American College of Preventative Medicine, American Thoracic Society, the Association of Public Health Laboratories, the Association of Schools of Public Health, the Hepatitis Foundation International, the Union of Concerned Scientists. Again, we have included for the record the scientists, 1,800 of whom signed a letter to us opposing this. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter signed by these entities as well as a separate letter from the American Lung Association.

Mrs. BOXER. These are the experts. These are the people we rely on when our children get sick. They don't take them, with all due respect, to Senator Boxer for a checkup or Senator Murkowski for a checkup. They go to the pediatrician. The pediatricians oppose the Murkowski resolution. They are afraid of it because they know who is behind it. They know it is the special polluting interests, the big polluters who give big money to politicians. They know that. They are smart. Let's be clear. We have on our side the people who are responsible for taking care of our kids, taking care of families, looking out for their health. They don't have any political skin in this game. They don't have any special interest in this game. They have one concern-- the health of our families. Overturning a scientific finding that states that carbon pollution is a threat to the health and well-being of the American public is a dangerous step. It would lead us down a perilous road that sets a precedent for appealing other scientific findings. I talked a little bit about that. I want to talk specifically about two other findings that maybe one day any Senator, on either side of the aisle, could seek to repeal. Imagine if we had done this on lead, lead and children. In 1973, EPA did what it had to do and issued an endangerment finding for lead in gasoline. At the time, the lead endangerment decision was controversial. This was the EPA under Richard Nixon. They said there was too much lead in gasoline. They said it was a danger to our kids. They said it would cause harm to the brains of our children. So the Administrator under Richard Nixon, William Ruckelshaus--who opposes the Murkowski resolution today--reached the conclusion that lead presented a significant risk of harm to the health of our population, particularly our children. What if a Member of Congress came down and said: We are going to overturn that. We don't like that rule. We don't like that finding. We disagree. We don't think it causes a problem. Can my colleagues imagine what would have happened? We would have seen the phase down of lead in gasoline delayed for a decade or more, leaving another generation of Americans exposed to serious health threats. We would have seen hundreds of thousands more children with impaired mental function. That is a fact. It may be a fact the other side doesn't want to hear, but it is a fact. That is why we have former members of the Nixon administration opposing the Murkowski resolution. Let's look at the science behind the dangers of smoking. What would have happened if people didn't agree with Surgeon General Everett Koop--another Republican administration--and they came down and said: Well, we are going to speak for the tobacco companies here. Let's repeal that. Nicotine isn't a problem, not a problem at all. Let's just overturn that health finding. Again, I ask my colleagues do they want to stand with the health experts, the lung association, the pediatricians, the nurses, or do they want to stand with the powerful special interests? It is a simple question. Every Member has to answer that. We have to stop this attack on science and health. We have to stop this attack on the safety of our citizens. Our families come first. I think it is important to note that overturning this endangerment finding--supporting the Murkowski resolution--is opposed by the auto industry and the autoworkers. This is what they tell us. We are spending $1 billion a day importing foreign oil. Do Members like that? Then vote for the Murkowski resolution. It is going to set us back. We won't get off foreign oil if we go down this path. This is why we have the automakers opposing Murkowski: On behalf of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and its 11 member companies, I am writing to express concern over the proposed resolutions of disapproval. If these resolutions are enacted, the historic agreement creating the one national program for regulating vehicle fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions would collapse. The autoworkers are asking us not to do this. Let's see what they say: The UAW is deeply concerned that overturning EPA's endangerment finding would unravel the historic agreement on one national standard for fuel economy. And they go on. Clearly, we are at a point where we are finally seeing the auto industry come back to life. Let's not pass the Murkowski resolution and get them off track. After all the debate and all the arguments, I know the Senators from Michigan care deeply about what is happening to their autoworkers and their auto companies. We are very clear here what side they are on. In summary, the Murkowski resolution would upend a historic agreement between auto companies, autoworkers, environmental groups, leading States such as California that formed the foundation of the recent EPA and DOT standards. I am going to include for the Record a host of quotes from our national security experts who tell us that carbon pollution leading to climate change will be, over the next 20 years, the leading cause of conflict putting our troops in harm's way. That is why we have so many returning veterans who want us to move forward and address this issue so we can create the new technologies that get us off this foreign oil. Every time we import oil, we hurt ourselves. We have to get off these old energy sources. It is a transition. It is not going to happen overnight. But if we do things such as the Murkowski resolution, we will create chaos. We are going to see jobs lost. We are going to see us continue in an economic situation that has no new paradigm for economic growth, as we have learned from our venture capitalists, as we have learned from analysts, such as Thomas Friedman, who are so clear on this point. The question before us is this: Will we protect the people we represent from dangerous pollution or will we choose to reject science? Will we choose to ignore the findings of the scientific community, the public health officials, and national security experts? If we care about jobs--I know the Presiding Officer does--if we care about moving to a clean energy economy, if Members care about health, if they care about our environment and our natural resources, then they should vote no on proceeding to this resolution. I hope we will carry the day. I know it will be close. But I have to tell my colleagues, this is a significant moment for the Senate because if we move down this path, ``Katy, bar the door.'' Any resolution, any health finding, any scientific finding is subject to politics. I would have thought that in the Senate, we might disagree with how to deal with the scientific finding--in other words, what kinds of rules and regulations should come out of it--but not to repeal the scientific finding itself. That would be unprecedented in the worst of ways. I have used my time, the first half hour; am I correct?

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I have a number of fantastic speakers we will hear from in the next ensuing time. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Colorado.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank Senator Udall for his remarks. I turn to a real leader on clean air, clean water, a real fighter for the health and safety of our children and our families, Senator Lautenberg, for 7 minutes.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the memory of Dorothy Kamenshek who passed away on May 17 at her home in Palm Desert, CA. She was 84 years old. Dorothy Kamenshek was born in Norwood, OH, on December 21, 1925. Her gifts on the diamond were evident from the time she attended the tryouts for an all women's baseball league in Cincinnati while she was a high school senior. Her performance at the tryouts earned her an invitation to participate in the final tryouts that were held at Wrigley Field in Chicago. From the Wrigley Field tryouts, Ms. Kamenshek would emerge as one of two women from Cincinnati who were selected to play in the fledgling All-American Girls Professional Baseball League. The All-American Girls Professional Baseball League was the brainchild of Chicago Cubs owner, Phillip Wrigley, who sought to fill the void that had been created by the disbanding of many minor league teams as a result of young men who were drafted into the armed services during World War II. The existence of the All-American Girls Professional Baseball League nearly paralleled the span of Ms. Kamenshek's playing career from 1943- 1954. During her career, Ms. Kamenshek all-around excellence on and off the field earned her the admiration of many fans and the respect of her peers. Ms. Kamenshek was undoubtedly one of the finest players in the All- American Girls Professional Baseball League. The league's all-time batting leader with a .292 average, she had a smooth left-handed swing that earned her consecutive batting titles in 1946 and 1947. The leadoff hitter for the Rockford Peaches, she used her speed on the base paths to create havoc for her opponents as she compiled 657 stolen bases during her career. An all-around baseball player, Ms. Kamenshek's work with the glove once prompted former New York Yankees first baseman Wally Pipp to observe that she was ``the fanciest fielding first baseman that I've ever seen, man or woman.'' Ms. Kamenshek would lead her team, the Rockford Peaches, to four championships before her career was curtailed by a back injury. A driven person who was not going to rest on her laurels, she earned a bachelor's degree in physical therapy from Marquette University after her baseball career. In 1961, she moved to California where she worked as a staff physical therapist, supervisor and chief of therapy services for the Los Angeles County disabled children's services agency. After her retirement from Los Angeles County in 1980, she continued to treat patients in acute care on a part-time basis for the next 6 years. In 1992, the story of Ms. Kamenshek and the other women who played in the All-American Girls Professional Baseball League was introduced to a new generation of Americans by the popular movie ``A League of Their Own.'' In the movie, the character of Dottie Hinson, played by Geena Davis, was presented as the best player in the league and was named Dottie as a tribute to Ms. Kamenshek, who was affectionately known as Dottie to her friends. In 1999, Sports Illustrated named Ms. Kamenshek one of its top 100 female athletes of the 20th century. On the field, Dorothy Kamenshek is widely regarded as the greatest female baseball player ever. Off the field, her legacy will be one of a pioneer who, through sheer talent and determination, achieved excellence in a sport that was once deemed to be beyond the physical capacity of females. Dorothy Kamenshek inspired generations of Americans to chip away at the glass ceiling to follow their dreams and pursue endeavors and careers of their own choosing. She will be dearly missed.

Mrs. BOXER

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 I may speak for 5 minutes at this time.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, thank you very much. Mr. President, there are so many issues on our plate this week: do everything in our power to work with our President to stop the oilspill in Louisiana, to rescue the fish and wildlife, to try to help the fishermen and the people who are so economically hurt by this, in my view, unnecessary tragedy. We are also working on jobs and the tax extenders bill which is so important so businesses can create jobs. So we know we have a lot on our plate. I take a couple of minutes to rise in support of a wonderful judicial nominee we will be voting on, Judge Lucy Koh. She has been nominated by the President to the Northern District Court of California. I thank Chairman Leahy and his committee for their work in approving this highly qualified nominee, who will be an outstanding addition to the Federal bench. I also thank my dear friend, Senator Feinstein, for her support of Judge Koh. I was so proud to have recommended this nominee to President Obama. This nominee was interviewed by my Northern District Judicial Advisory Committee, and you can see, after you hear about her, why they were so clear she would make a great Federal judge. Judge Koh is the daughter of two proud parents who risked much to come to this country and provide for their children. Her mother escaped from North Korea at the age of 10 by walking for 2 weeks into South Korea--a dangerous trek that required her to hide from North Korean soldiers along the way. Her father fought against the Communists in the Korean war and later immigrated to the U.S. of A. Her dad worked as a busboy and a waiter in Maryland while attending Johns Hopkins University, later bringing the rest of the family here. Judge Koh is the first member of her family to be born in the United States of America. It is a fantastic example of the great American dream that we try to protect here, hopefully, every day. Her family moved to Mississippi, where her mother taught at Alcorn State University--the Nation's first historically African-American land-grant college. During this time, Judge Koh was bused to a predominantly African-American public school, where many of her classmates lived in poverty. Her childhood experiences provided inspiration for her to pursue a career in the law and work for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund during law school. She attended Harvard-Radcliffe Colleges as a Harry S. Truman Scholar, graduating magna cum laude. After college, she attended Harvard Law School, where she was awarded Best Brief in the school's moot court competition. Judge Koh has had a diverse career in the practice of law that makes her uniquely qualified to serve as a Federal judge. She has worked in policy, serving as a fellow for a subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and in policy positions at the Justice Department. She served as a Federal prosecutor in Los Angeles, where she handled financial fraud, narcotics, public corruption, and violent crime cases. She received awards for her work as a prosecutor, including a Sustained Superior Performance Award and an award from then-FBI Director Louis Freeh for her prosecution of a $54 million securities fraud case. She was a litigator in private practice prior to becoming a State court judge. During her time in private practice, Judge Koh worked on complex litigation matters involving securities and intellectual property, primarily appearing in Federal court. She led the trial and appellate team in the landmark intellectual property case In re Seagate, where a new legal standard was established. With these credentials, it is easy to see why Governor Schwarzenegger appointed her to the California Superior Court in 2008, where she once again excelled as a judge, handling a docket of both criminal and civil cases. Today, she is poised to become the first Asian-American judge in the history of the Northern District of California. She will also become the first Korean-American woman in U.S. history to serve as a Federal judge. A family's dream is poised to become a part of American history this very day. To Judge Koh and to her family, I extend my most heartfelt congratulations on this important and historic day. I know I speak for many Californians, especially those in the Korean and Asian-American communities, in expressing our great pride in her. Support for Judge Koh is diverse. She has been endorsed by a wide group of supporters, such as our Governor and former Massachusetts Republican Governor William Weld; former Presiding Judge Priscilla Gallagher of the Santa Clara County Court; Santa Clara County District Attorney Delores Carr, Santa Clara County Sheriff Laurie Smith; former Bush Office of Legal Policy Director Viet Dinh; the National Asian Pacific American Bar Association; and the Asian American Justice Center. I close by congratulating Judge Koh and the other nominees and their families, and I urge my colleagues in the Senate to vote to confirm these nominees to the Federal bench. (At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mrs. BOXER

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

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, what is the order now?

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, would it be in order for me to speak against the Collins amendment, No. 4253, at this time?

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I hope we are going to defeat the Collins amendment, No. 4253. Let me explain what the amendment does. I want to describe why it is wrong and why it should be defeated. The purpose of the Collins amendment is to prohibit the EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency, from ensuring compliance with Federal safeguards to protect pregnant women, infants, and children from lead poisoning related to repair and renovation work involving lead-based paint. I think everyone agrees--I don't think there is any dissent-- that lead is very dangerous and lead poisons children. We know it is imperative to remove the lead from the child's environment in order to make sure they do not get brain damage. This amendment is designed to stop the EPA from enforcing that very important safeguard of removing this lead even if businesses were criminally negligent, even if businesses were willfully breaking the law's safeguards. If children were lead-poisoned and had permanent brain damage as a result of inadequate care being taken to protect the public health, EPA still couldn't enforce this law and get rid of the lead. Even if a child died as a result of severe lead poisoning, this amendment says EPA cannot enforce the law here. The reason that is given by Senator Collins for her amendment to prohibit EPA from enforcing this law to protect our kids from lead is that there are not enough trainers available at EPA to train businesses so they are properly trained to do this work. Later on in this statement, I will show why that is false. But let me say that we ought to know what we are getting into here if we start doing things like this. Whose side are we on, anyway--the side of our families or the side of some businesses that do not want to do what has to be done and are using any excuse to get out of doing what needs to be done, which is to get rid of the lead. On April 22, 2008, EPA issued a rule requiring the use of lead-safe practices to prevent lead poisoning. The rule requires one contractor in a renovation or repair job site to be certified in lead safe job practices. This one contractor can oversee or conduct the work. The rule covers projects at childcare facilities, schools, and homes that were built before 1978, and any facility that contains lead-based paint. The Bush administration's EPA promulgated this rule after then- Senator Obama worked to get the Agency to conduct the rulemaking. When the Agency started the rulemaking in 2006, the EPA was a decade behind the schedule Congress had set out. Imagine this: It took an extra 10 years to get this regulation in place, and Senator Collins wants to stop the enforcement. This is a bad amendment. Let me tell you about the public health threats EPA's rule is designed to protect. According to the CDC, the Centers for Disease Control, lead is a dangerous toxin that can harm almost every organ and system in the body, and there is no known safe level of lead in children's blood. About 250,000 U.S. children age 1 to 5 have blood lead levels greater than 10 micrograms of lead per deciliter of blood, the level on which CDC recommends public health intervention. When children have that much lead in their bodies, they may have to undergo painful treatments to quickly reduce their blood lead levels. According to the EPA, lead can damage the nervous system, including the brain, which can harm mental development, and it can cause permanent injury to hearing and visual abilities. Pregnant women, infants, and children are especially at risk from exposure to lead. Exposure before and during pregnancy can harm prenatal development and cause miscarriages. Large exposure to lead can cause blindness, brain damage, convulsions, and even death. The long- term effects of lead exposure in children include higher school failure rates and reduction in lifetime earnings due to permanent loss of intelligence and other impacts. Let me tell you, Madam President, this is a proven scientific fact. Exposure to lead in children--in all of us is a real problem but especially in children. If we are not on the side of the children in this Senate, I don't know whose side we are on. This is a very unwise amendment. According to the EPA, 40 percent of homes have some lead-based paint, and annual renovation, repair, and painting projects may impact 1.4 million children under the age of 6. Lead-based paint repair and renovation activities can significantly increase the risk of elevated blood lead in our children. An EPA study found that children living in residences during renovation and remodeling activities were 30 percent more likely to have elevated blood lead levels than children who lived elsewhere. States from coast to coast recognize the threat lead poses to infants and children, and they recognize that trained individuals should do lead paint repair and renovation work. In Maine, the State government recognizes that more than 60 percent of Maine homes may contain lead paint. Home renovations caused over half the childhood lead poisonings in Maine. This is a statement from the Maine government: It is very important that home repairs in an area with lead paint be done safely and correctly. Improper removal of lead paint can poison you and your children. This is from the State of Maine. They go on to say: Every year, hundreds of children in Maine are found to have elevated blood levels. Most children are poisoned by lead hazards in their homes. To protect yourself, your family and any tenants, you can use a licensed lead abatement contractor with workers who have been trained and certified in lead abatement. In Tennessee, we have a similar warning: A common source of high-dose lead exposure to young children is deteriorating paint in homes and buildings. They say: Hire a certified lead-based paint professional to remove lead-based paint from your home. In Oklahoma, they say: Lead poisoning is the No. 1 environmental health hazard for children. Remodeling a house covered in lead paint will create dust and paint chips that can cause lead poisoning if inhaled or ingested. Protect your family from lead during remodeling. The State says: If you hire contractors, make sure they understand the causes of lead poisoning and how to stay safe. In my home State of California, this is what they say: Lead in paint chips, dust, and soil cling to toys, fingers, and other objects children put into their mouths. This is the most common way children get lead poisoning. Many construction professionals today still do not know about the harmful effects of lead. They may not even know that simple painting, remodeling, or renovation projects can cause lead poisoning. I think it is very important to note that industry has had years to understand and prepare for this rule. EPA began the rulemaking in 2006, and contracting organizations and other stakeholders met and talked with the agency. EPA issued a final rule in 2008. The rule did not go into effect until 2010. EPA got hundreds of comments during the rulemaking process. The agency has joined with the Coalition to End Childhood Lead Poisoning, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the Ad Council to sponsor a nationwide public advertising campaign to raise awareness of the dangers of lead poisoning to children. Advertisements are being distributed to more than 33,000 media outlets, and workers are already trained and more workers are receiving training in order to ensure compliance with this rule's safeguards. Let me tell you, Senator Collins has stated on this floor that she supports getting the lead out of our homes, that she supports training the contractors. The reason she is stopping this--and make no mistake, stopping this program, which means more lead poisoning in our children--the reason is, she says, there is not enough trainers. So we called EPA. I spoke to Senator Feinstein about this, and we find no such thing. According to EPA, States across the Nation have more than enough trainers to handle renovation needs at this point in the year. In areas of States that may be harder to get to the agency has traveling trainers who go from State to State giving classes. EPA has stated the number of renovators needed to implement the rule during the first full year will be achieved in the next 2 months. They will have trained 363,000 renovators. This means training is ahead of schedule. It is ahead of needs since we are only halfway through the year. As of May 19, there are 223 accredited training providers offering training across the country; 119 are available to travel to provide training in any State--your State, my State, any State. Most of these trainers are offering multiple training courses each week. As of May 19, 2010, these training providers have offered over 12,000 renovator certification classes and trained 200,000 to 250,000 renovators. Further, 238 additional training providers have applied to become accredited. When approved, these trainers will more than double the Nation's training capacity. Let's take a look at Maine. According to EPA, this State is estimated to need 1,300 renovators trained in this first year that the Federal rule protecting people from lead poisoning is in effect. As of May 19, Maine has at least 2,686 trained renovators, and there have been 158 classes provided in the State. Again, there are 119 traveling providers who can travel anywhere in the country to offer courses. EPA told Senator Collins' staff, and we found this out from EPA, that the agency would send such trainers to northern Maine to offer classes in Bangor, where staff said there was a need for more trainers. EPA asked staff for contact information on the individuals who had called the Senator asking for assistance in getting trained. So far EPA has not received a response. In Maine, believe it or not, there have been cancellations of training classes, and 32 classes have been canceled. EPA believes cancellations occur because they are just not enrolling. So to come here and say there are not enough trainers, when her State has canceled training, just does not add up. EPA's rules already provide exemptions for emergency situations. For example, the recent floods in Tennessee have damaged many homes that must now undergo renovation. On May 14, 2010, the EPA sent the State of Tennessee a letter announcing that emergency exemptions from the agency's lead paint repair and renovation rule applied in 42 counties that had experienced serious flooding. EPA stated: It is permissible for individuals to perform immediate activities necessary to protect their property and public health. These actions may include the removal of surfaces containing lead-based paint. Further, these actions need not be performed by a certified individual. To the extent necessary to alleviate the concerns associated with this emergency. So EPA is being very flexible. They are not saying to people who are trying to recover from a flood: You need to remove the lead. If you need to deal with your home, deal with it. Do not have this added worry. So they are flexible. Lead hazard information: having a sign to warn people about lead dust hazards, containing lead dust in the work area by using such materials as plastic and tape, lead dust waste handling requirements and certain training and certification requirements. This also has been waived in this Tennessee circumstance. EPA has said some safeguards still apply to these renovations. But they have exempted them from quite a few. They do not want to see our children exposed. EPA's rules require a simple, commonsense action such as using plastic and tape to control the migration of lead dust, the use of HEPA vacuums that can be purchased at department stores to clean up dust, and a prohibition on certain actions that create extremely serious lead dust hazards. According to EPA, these safeguards add only $35 to the cost of renovation. I have letters from public health organizations that oppose this amendment. I also have a letter from the EPA explaining why it opposes this amendment. I ask unanimous consent that these be printed in the Record at this time.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, first, let me say to the Senator from Tennessee, in his State all the counties that had flooding are exempt from this rule. I have the letter from the EPA, and I spoke with them about it. Secondly, let us not go back on this important issue. Lead is very dangerous, particularly for pregnant women, infants, and children. This amendment would stop any funds in this bill from being used to enforce the EPA's lead paint renovation program, which was put into place by President Bush's EPA. There is a training program, and my friend from Maine says there are not enough trainers. There are so many trainers that there are 119 of them who are ready to travel to each and every State, and already they are ahead of the training. Mr. President, 360,000 people will be trained in the next 2 months. What this amendment does is rewards the contractors who did not get the training and it hurts the others. I urge a strong ``no'' vote.

Mrs. BOXER. I think it is important to take a stand for our children. This would completely shut down this important program. It would say it is put on hold, even in the worst circumstances. The National Center for Healthy Housing sent a letter: ``Protect Women, Infants and Children from Lead Poisoning--Oppose Amendment 4253.'' Let me tell you, it is signed by some important organizations: The National Center for Healthy Housing in Maryland; the Healthy Homes LLC, in Cincinnati, OH; Childhood Lead Action Project in Providence, RI; Division of Public Health in Madison, WI; Children's Health Forum in Washington, DC; Parents for Nontoxic Alternatives, Washington, DC; Healthy Homes Collaborative, Los Angeles; and Bay Area Get the Lead Out Coalition, CA; Fresno Interdenominational Ministries in Fresno. The list goes on and on, many from California. Interstate Property Inspections, Inc., in Rochester, NY; Alameda County Lead Poisoning Prevention Program, Oakland, CA; Jackson, MI, a facility manager says no to this amendment. The Coalition for Economic Survival says no. Riverside, NJ, we have a letter from them. We have a letter from Kansas. We have more from Cleveland, from Minnesota, from Florida, the American Management Resources Corporation; Healthy Homes Coalition in Michigan; Environmental Education Associates in Buffalo; Coalition to End Childhood Lead Poisoning in Baltimore, MD. Here is an interesting one. The Harry Reid Center for Environmental Studies in Las Vegas, NV. We ought to make sure our leader knows they have taken a stand here. The Rhode Island Lead Techs, in East Providence, and from Niagara County, Childhood Lead Poisoning Program. This is where we stand. Finally, we have a rule in place, and it happens to be that President Obama, when he was a Senator, pushed hard for that rule. It made it through, and there has been long lead time. We are ready to go. Whenever there is a renovation now, and we know there is lead involved, we have to make sure somebody is trained. EPA has the trainers. The fact that someone stands on the floor of the Senate and says they do not flies in the face of what I read. We know how many we have. We know there are many who would come on and go anyplace across the country. These training sessions take about 8 hours, and then the person is licensed to do this removal. That is it. Let's not turn back the clock. Let's not go back to the time that we did not know lead caused these problems. Lead is poison. Lead is poison. We are ready to get it out of these old buildings. We are ready to do it, and I do not see why we should turn the clock back to another time and place and say we are doing it for the reason that there are not enough trainers when there are enough trainers. That is not right. So I will say at this time, I do not see anybody else here. I hope we will vote down the Collins amendment. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield?

Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Senator from Florida. He represents a State that relies on a beautiful coastline, beautiful ocean, the ability for the fishermen to earn their living, the ability of the tourism industry to thrive, the jobs that are related in both of our States. I see Senator Cantwell and Senator Feinstein in the Chamber. The six Senators from the west coast came together in an unusual press conference, an unusual moment to say: We don't want to put our coastlines at risk. We can't afford to do it, let alone our moral responsibility to future generations. What we are seeing here are the limits of the technology. I know the Senator saw the words BP wrote on the permit application when they wanted to move forward with this exploratory well. They said the chances of a spill were remote. But even if there would be a spill, they said the technology was up to the task. After the spill, the first thing they said was: We have never had experience in cleaning up a spill in this deep water. Doesn't this strike my friend as something the Justice Department ought to look at, which several of us on the Environment Committee have asked for? Did they, in fact, tell the truth on their permit application or did they not? I ask my friend to respond to that. One more thing--and I thank the Senator from Florida so much. We are a good, strong team. It is a good east coast-west coast team. When we looked at that riser, the technique that is kind of a straw that they say is siphoning off the oil, they claimed it was taking out 1,000 barrels a day. Then they said 2,000 barrels a day. Now they say it is 3,000 barrels a day. Remember, they told us it was 5,000 in total that was being spilled. Now they are claiming 3,000. When we looked at that--and now the American people can look at this--didn't you see what I saw? It is a fraction of the oil that is being siphoned off. In fact, most of the oil is gushing like mad out there, with just a little bit being siphoned off, which tells us there is a much greater volume than BP said. If I may ask my friend to answer the two questions. Does he believe the Justice Department ought to take a look at these reassurances BP gave before they got the permit and then what they said after, and also comment on this whole notion of siphoning off the oil that they said was successful.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am honored to recognize undersheriff Valerie Hill as she retires from the Riverside County Sheriff's Department. Undersheriff Hill, the highest ranking female in law enforcement in Riverside County, has served the people and the county of Riverside for over 30 years. When Undersheriff Hill joined the Riverside County Sheriff's Department in 1977, she was assigned patrol duties in Lake Elsinore and later worked in the Riverside and Moreno Valley stations. As a sergeant, she served in Corrections and also at the Moreno Valley station. Over the course of her career she has had many other assignments within the Sheriff's Department. As assistant sheriff she was responsible for Corrections Division, Court Services and CAL-ID. Her numerous assignments over the past 30 years have given her the opportunity to become actively involved in the changes occurring in Riverside County. Undersheriff Hill was the department's first female hostage negotiator, first female field training officer, first female assistant sheriff, and first female undersheriff. She was also one of two individuals instrumental in the development of the Special Enforcement Team (S.E.T.), which is a highly successful enforcement team in Moreno Valley. Believing that community service extends beyond her duties in the department, Undersheriff Hill serves on numerous boards and committees, which include: Operation SafeHouse (board president), Riverside Area Rape Crisis Center (2006 and 2007 board president), Southern California Jail Managers Association (2006 president), YWCA (Evening of Achievement chairperson), and is an active member of the Kiwanis Club of Riverside. She volunteers two Sunday evenings a month through her church at a ``hot meal'' program that feeds the needy. She believes ``We make a living by what we get but, we make a life by what we give.'' Undersheriff Hill was honored by the YWCA in 2002 as a Woman of Achievement and in 2004 by the Inland Empire Magazine as a ``Woman Who Makes a Difference.'' In 2005 she was presented the Gold Key Award by Soroptimist International and in 2007 she was presented the Lifetime Achievement Award by the Law Enforcement Appreciation Committee (LEAC). It is my pleasure to recognize Undersheriff Valerie Hill as she prepares to retire from the Riverside County Sheriff's Department, though I hope she continues her fine service to her community.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the memory of Margaret Joan Morgan Foley. Mrs. Foley passed away on May 9 at her home in Visalia. She was 87 years old. Margaret Foley was born in Dawson Springs, KY, on November 5, 1922. After obtaining her registered nursing license at the age of 21 from the Salem School of Nursing, she enlisted in the U.S. Army in the fall of 1943. During World War II, she would serve in the Philippines and Nagasaki, Japan. Upon her return home, Mrs. Foley settled in Los Angeles where she worked as a surgical nurse at Saint Luke's Hospital. During this period, she met and married James Foley. A person of remarkable character and determination, Mrs. Foley was undeterred by a bout with tuberculosis that required a 23-month stay at a sanitarium in Altadena, as she fought valiantly to full recovery and continued her education at the University of Southern California. In 1955, the Foleys moved north to Tulare, where Mr. Foley accepted a job as a reporter for the Tulare Advance-Register. Spurred on by a lifelong passion to improve the education, health and welfare of children and the poor, Mrs. Foley generously lent her time and considerable talents to a number of important community causes; the Parent Teacher Association, the Tulare Mental Health Advisory Board, Tulare County Legal Services, Tulare County Health System Agency, and the Porterville State Board Hospital. In 1969, Mrs. Foley resumed working as a part-time nurse at Kaweah Delta District Hospital. For the next 21 years, she successfully served as a nursing supervisor for neonatal care and eventually becoming the perinatal manager for the hospital until her retirement in 1990. Mrs. Foley continued her commitment to help those who are less fortunate during her retirement. In 1990, she was elected to the Kaweah Delta Health Care District Board of Directors. For the next 20 years, she would leave an indelible impact on the board through her tenures as its secretary, vice president, and president. As someone who was always willing to lend a helping hand, she also served on the College of the Sequoias Nursing Advisory Committee, the Good Samaritan Board, and as a staff nurse at the Good News Clinic. Mrs. Foley embodied the best ideals of volunteerism and public service. A person of great warmth and humility, Mrs. Foley was admired by those who knew her for her kindness, compassion and decency. She was the inaugural recipient of the Tulare County Bar Association Liberty Bell Award in 1976, the 1980 Visalia Chamber of Commerce Woman of the Year, 1983 College of the Sequoias Nursing Faculty's Nurse of the Year and, most recently, the 2006 Rose Ann Vuich Ethical Leadership Award, a well-deserved and prestigious award that celebrates excellence and integrity in public service. Margaret Foley devoted most of her life to making a positive impact on the lives of others. Mrs. Foley's generously gave her boundless compassion and precious humanity to uplifting and empowering those who are most often neglected in our society: the young and the poor. Mrs. Foley has left behind a legacy of service and the admiration of those whose lives she touched over the years. She will be dearly missed. Mrs. Foley was preceded in death by her husband Jim; her parents William Roderick and Florence Pugh Morgan; two brothers, Roderick William and John Paul Morgan; and a sister Ann Trader Schweiger. She is survived by her children, James and his wife Penelope Applegarth; John and his wife Anne Bird; Morgan and his wife Sandra Platt; Sara Foley Fox and her husband Michael; and Patricia Foley Teaford and her husband Elliott; seven grandchildren; and two brothers, William Radtke and James Trader.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I wish to recognize the great work and remarkable accomplishments of El Camino Real High School's Academic Decathlon team for winning the 2010 Academic Decathlon and its sixth National Championship. Members of the National Championship team include: Vivian Cheng, Daniel de Haas, Evan Edmisten, Andrew Fann, Audrey Goldbaum, Jessica Lin, Daniel Moreh, Adriana Ureche, Michael Walker, and team coaches John Dalsass, and Stephanie Franklin. With this win, El Camino Real High School has earned the distinction of becoming six-time Academic Decathlon National Champions and nine- time State Champions. This milestone gives El Camino Real High School the distinction of being the Nation's all-time leader in national academic decathlon championships. Competing in an Academic Decathlon is a daunting task. The Academic Decathlon's intense two-day national final competitions include multiple-choice testing in seven different events, speeches, essay writing, and interviewing exercises. Students spend many hours studying, practicing, and competing, often away from their family and friends. I invite all of my colleagues to join me, the Woodland Hills community and the State of California in congratulating California's El Camino Real High School Academic Decathlon team for becoming 2010 National Academic Decathlon Champions.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, what is the pending business, or the order?

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I want to take some time to speak out against the Shelby amendment and urge that it be defeated. If that is appropriate at this time, I will use as much time as I may consume.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, this is a pivotal point in the debate on Wall Street reform. We never want to see what happened to this country happen again, where they essentially crashed the stock market. People had been talked into very difficult to understand and exotic subprime mortgages. We had such greed running rampant on Wall Street, and instruments were created that were even difficult for the Secretary of the Treasury to explain--derivatives that were so complex they were in about the third order. If we were to adopt the Shelby amendment, we would weaken this bill. As a matter of fact, we will weaken current law, and not only will consumers be hurt but they will actually lose ground--when the purpose of the Dodd bill--our bill--is to elevate consumers, give them protection from these kinds of schemes that brought our economy to its knees and resulted in 700,000 jobs a month being lost then, and the wealth of the average American, who had even a 401(k), was down 20, 30, 40, and maybe 50 percent and, as a result of that, the lack of consumer confidence that followed. We know our economy is based on consumer confidence. Seventy percent of our economy is attached to consumer spending. When people see the stock market and their wealth going down, and see neighbors losing their homes and jobs, they feel threatened and they pull back, and rightly so. It started from deregulation on steroids on Wall Street, where the regulators didn't even use the powers they had to protect consumers. An essential part of this bill is putting a cop on the beat for consumers, finally. So whether you are a consumer of credit cards, or a consumer in terms of the housing market, or a consumer in terms of the stock market or the commodities market, you are finally going to have a watchdog. We know the regulators didn't care about consumers. We know that. We know, for example, that the Fed had the authority to intervene in the housing market, if they felt these subprime loans were wrong, and stop them. They didn't do it. We know the SEC was warned about Madoff. There were whistleblowers to that Ponzi scheme, and many more Ponzi schemes were going on. They didn't even follow the lead. We need to have a strong, independent consumer agency that says to the regulators: You are not doing your job. We are going to make sure you do it. That is what is in the bill before us. But the Shelby amendment takes us back. The new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau will enforce existing consumer protection laws--those same laws that went unenforced by current regulators. I gave you the example of the SEC and the Ponzi schemes, and of the Fed overlooking the mortgage crisis, and there are many others. It would also ensure clear disclosure to consumers of all the terms and conditions of the financial products they buy. Believe me, you would have to have a degree in economics and finance and everything else to understand some of the fine print in a credit card bill. People are stunned to know they are paying 20, 30-percent interest rates on their credit cards, because there is no clear way of knowing. In this bill, that is over. You have to know the terms and conditions of the financial products you buy. This bill will bring protections to home buyers from the kinds of exotic mortgages that led to the current crisis. Let me give you an example. People were offered mortgages at a teaser rate--a very low rate--and were not being told in clear terms that in a couple of years that teaser rate would go up and go up and go up. I have to say, some in the mortgage business were paid more commissions to put unsuspecting consumers into these exotic mortgages. So they pushed those mortgages. That is wrong. We need a consumer protection agency that notes it is wrong and puts a stop to it. We have a situation that weakens the current law. If you think that is right, if you think, for example, that consumers caused the Wall Street meltdown--I think you are living on another planet--vote for this amendment. We know who caused this crisis. We know the greed on Wall Street. We know even while these companies were getting bailed out, they were paying their people huge bonuses. The word ``outrageous'' really can be defined by what these people did. If my colleagues want more of the same--I cannot understand why they would--but if they want more of the same, if they do not want to strengthen consumer protection, then vote for the Shelby amendment. Let's be clear. This amendment is a gutting amendment. Instead of creating an independent consumer watchdog, the Shelby amendment creates a weak sister, a weak division of the consumer protection in the FDIC. This new idea of Senator Shelby's, this new division of consumer protection, would no longer be independent. It would be under the FDIC. It would not have any authority to adopt any rule without the approval of the same bank regulators who have routinely ignored or opposed the needs of consumers. Let me repeat that. The weak consumer protection agency created in the Shelby amendment would have no authority to adopt any rule without the approval of the same bank regulators who have routinely ignored or opposed the needs of consumers. It even would give bank regulators a veto over consumer protection regulations. That is totally unacceptable. If my colleagues are for Wall Street reform, they have to vote no on the Shelby amendment. This is the moment of truth. Either my colleagues are going to stand with the people of this country who are innocent victims of greed on Wall Street or they are not. If they want to stand for the greed on Wall Street, if they want to stand for no protection for consumers, a weakening of the protections they already have, which are far too weak, vote for this amendment, and let's go forward with a Dodd bill which has a strong independent consumer protection agency. I would add that the Shelby amendment would burden the new consumer protection division that he has in his amendment with incredible procedural hurdles--hurdles that have effectively prevented the FTC, that has similar rules, from writing any new rules protecting consumers since 1984. Mr. President, 1984 was an interesting year for me. It was a long time ago. I was a lot younger. It was before my hair turned blond. In that year, I was in the House of Representatives, and I was pushing the Federal Trade Commission to help consumers. They had too many hurdles. They have not done anything in all those years. Yet this is the template that Senator Shelby is using for this watered-down consumer protection division. I see Senator Merkley on the floor, and I am going to yield in a minute. He is such a leader on all these issues and such a great populist leader in this Senate. Maybe my colleagues who support this amendment think the regulators who allowed all of these abuses to happen under their watch, despite repeated warnings, did a fine job and are the best protectors of consumers. But even if those regulators have somehow had a change of heart and are determined to change their ways, this amendment would leave them with even fewer powers to protect consumers than exist under the current system.. The Shelby amendment would burden the new Consumer Protection Division with the same incredible procedural hurdles that face the Federal Trade Commission--hurdles that have effectively prevented the FTC from writing any rules in the consumer finance area since 1984. In addition, the amendment would actually prohibit the proposed consumer division from doing any rulewriting under the FTC Act for payday lenders, debt collectors, foreclosure scam operators, mortgage brokers and other nonbank consumer finance companies. If the new division did somehow manage to get new rules written, the amendment would make sure that they could not be enforced. Under this amendment, the new weakened consumer division could do examinations of some finance companies only after consumers have been harmed repeatedly. This after-the-fact authority closes the barn door after the horse is out, and handcuffs regulators from protecting consumers until the harm is already done. Some of my colleagues want us to believe that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that we have proposed in our Wall Street reform bill would harm small businesses. Nothing could be further from the truth. Merchants, retailers, and sellers of nonfinancial goods are specifically excluded from the oversight of our proposed new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. This includes retailers who provide ordinary credit to their customers to buy their goods. Even for small businesses that do sell financial products--including community banks and all kinds of small lenders--the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau will have no direct enforcement authority. Enforcement of rules will be handled by the current regulator or State attorneys general. I will give one more example I think is very important. I told you the template for Senator Shelby's new consumer protection agency is the FTC. I told you under those rules, the FTC has not done anything since 1984. Let's say they were able to get new rules written. Let's say they were able to do that. Senator Shelby ensures that the rules they write could never be enforced. How does he do that? Because he says the only time the weakened consumer division could do any examinations of some financial companies would be after consumers have been harmed repeatedly. This is after- the-fact authority. I have seen too many people crying because of what happened on Wall Street. I have seen too many people crying because they lost their jobs because of what happened on Wall Street. I have seen pictures in the paper of Americans crying because of what Bernie Madoff did to them and their children. I want this stopped. I do not want it stopped after the fact. Yes, thank goodness Bernie Madoff is in prison where he belongs. But it is very difficult to make the people whole who were harmed by that Ponzi scheme. We do not want after-the-fact authority; we want before-the-fact authority. We want this consumer protection agency to be on its toes, to intervene, to see if there is a scam going on; to see if there is a credit card scam that leads to 30, 40, 50 percent interest rates; to see if there is a scam on mortgages where people unknowingly walk into a mortgage where the rate goes up to 12 percent. At the end of the day, we know consumers were hurt hard by Ponzi schemes, by markets in the dark, confusing mortgage options, some bordering on fraud by credit card scams and worse. Let's take a stand in a bipartisan way and vote no on this amendment and support the consumer protection agency, the strong one that is in this bill. I can tell my colleagues, if we do that, the American people can take a deep breath and know that they will be protected. I yield the floor.

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

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I would like everyone to take a look at these headlines from September 2008: ``Nightmare on Wall Street, Where Do We Go From Here?'' All of us who went through this, whether we were in the Senate or we were looking at what was happening to our investments on Wall Street, we saw over 3 short days in September of 2008, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, and AIG collapsed and the stock market plunged. Seniors lost their retirement savings, and families lost their jobs and homes. Small businesses stopped hiring. It was a nightmare. That is what it was. If there is one thing we should all be able to agree on, it is this: The American taxpayer should never again have to bail out Wall Street firms that gambled away our savings and wreaked havoc on our economy. My amendment is very clear. It is not a sense of the Senate. It has the force of law. It is straightforward. It is an ironclad assurance that a failing, insolvent Wall Street firm must be liquidated, and the cost of that liquidation must come either from selling off the firm's assets or from industry assessments of the big Wall Street firms. I will retain the remainder of my time in case there is a debate. I hope this is close to a unanimous vote. It is clear, and I hope we will agree. I retain the remainder of my time.