Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Suddenly, my friend is upset that consumers won't be made whole. Well, I hope my colleagues will support my amendment because my amendment says that, in fact, consumers will be made whole by the policies in the bill, by the revenues in the bill. We embrace what he is doing with his amendment. We hope he will embrace what we are doing in our amendment, which is to say that consumers will do well in any cap-and-trade system. They will not be hit. They will have rebates. They will be made whole. The fact is, the very same MIT study he cites proves our point. Our friends on the other side are nervous and excited now because there are studies that say gasoline could go up by 10 cents over 10 years--a penny a year. They are getting very exercised about that. None of us want that. But they weren't exercised over it when there was manipulation going on by the oil companies, the traders, and the rest of it. What we are saying in our amendment is----

Mrs. BOXER. Vote aye on the Boxer amendment and vote aye on the Thune amendment. Amendment No. 749

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, there is no national energy tax proposal. Nobody I know has ever proposed it. If the purpose of this amendment is to fight a national energy tax proposal, then it is very interesting because there is no such proposal. The fact is, we have a cap-and-trade system in place for acid rain. I never heard one Republican come to the floor and call that a tax. It is not a tax. My friend is very concerned that energy prices will go up. I share his concern. He should vote for my amendment. As a matter of fact, I think it would be stunning if my friend didn't because I said any kind of a cap-and-trade system that comes forward will not increase electricity or gas prices or increase the overall burden on consumers.

Mrs. BOXER. He will have a lot of explaining to do to his constituents. I urge an ``aye'' vote on Boxer and on Thune.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mrs. BOXER. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 731

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I think Members should feel free to vote for the Thune amendment because the Boxer amendment was adopted, which means that if there is any increase in gasoline prices, in electricity prices, because the Boxer amendment was adopted, we said we can rebate, we can take the funds that have come in from a cap-and-trade system and keep consumers whole. So I have no problem at all with the Thune amendment now that we have passed Boxer. So feel very free to do that. I will say that my friends on the other side are so desperate to kill cap and trade that they call it a national sales tax. They never called the cap-and-trade system for acid rain a national sales tax. So they are inventing a new vocabulary just to kill any chance at addressing global warming in the way that most businesses want us to address it-- through a cap-and-trade system. But I feel comfortable voting for the Thune amendment because the Boxer amendment passed, and we will have the ability to keep consumers whole.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I honor the life of a great American, John Hope Franklin, who died last week at the age of 94. Dr. Franklin was a witness, participant and documentarian of the struggle of African Americans for civil rights and the fight to have this country fulfill its promise to become a more perfect union for all of its citizens. Dr. Franklin once said, ``I want to be out there on the firing line, helping, directing or doing something to try to make this a better world, a better place to live.'' In his life, Dr. Franklin did just that through his work with W. E. B. Du Bois, his efforts on Brown v Board of Education with Thurgood Marshall and by marching from Selma to Montgomery with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. How wonderful that this great fighter for civil rights was able to witness the election of Barack Obama as President of the United States. As a historian and a teacher, Dr. Franklin enriched this Nation by educating us all about race issues. He began his teaching career in 1936 at Fisk and continued teaching over the next six decades, at schools such as Howard University, the University of Chicago, Cambridge University in England, Harvard, Cornell, the University of California Berkeley, Duke, and other institutions. He had a passion for teaching, and I was fortunate enough to sit in on Dr. Franklin's classes at Brooklyn College in the 1960s. Having him there was like having a real star in our midst, and students who were lucky enough to get into his class bragged about him from morning until night. Dr. Franklin was the author of nearly 20 books, beginning with ``The Free Negro in North Carolina, 1790-1860,'' which explored slaveholders' hatred and fear of the quarter-million free blacks in the antebellum South. His 1947 ``From Slavery to Freedom: A History of African- Americans,'' remains a classic and one of the most definitive explorations of the American Black experience. Dr. Franklin once said, ``One might argue that the historian is the conscience of the nation, if honesty and consistency are factors that nurture the conscience.'' While many of these studies may have been of the past, they inevitably shed light on the struggles we continue to face as a nation. Dr. Franklin led a life of firsts, and President Clinton awarded him the Medal of Freedom, the Nation's highest civilian honor, in 1995 for his life's work. Today, I honor his life and ask that all Americans join me in remembering this truly great visionary who never stopped working for change.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I join Representative Susan Davis in commemorating Cesar E. Chavez's 82nd birthday by introducing legislation to name a post office in San Diego, CA, after this extraordinary civil rights activist and union leader. Today we join millions of people across this Nation in honoring Cesar Chavez's legacy as an educator, environmentalist, and a civil rights leader who was committed to providing fair wages, better working conditions, decent housing, and quality education for all. As an activist, Chavez worked to give a voice to the voiceless, and inspire millions of Americans to stand up and say, ``Si, Se Puede!'' As a migrant farm worker in his youth, Cesar E. Chavez learned about the struggles of farm workers including poor wages, poor medical coverage, and poor working conditions. When he returned from serving his country in the Navy during World War II, Chavez began to work to improve this situation, first by organizing for the Community Service Organization coordinating voter-registration drives and battling racial and economic discrimination. In 1962 Cesar Chavez founded the National Farm Workers Association, later to become the United Farm Workers, the largest farm workers union in the country. Using nonviolent tactics, such as boycotts, pickets, and strikes, Chavez raised awareness about the plight of farm workers. Cesar Chavez's unflagging determination made great strides in championing the rights of farm workers, but the struggle for farm workers continues. This year, thousands of workers across California are preparing to march, and continue the fight for their rights. Cesar Chavez's life and legacy should serve not only as an example but an inspiration to us all as we work to address the growing inequality in our nation, as well as the challenges faced by America's working families, including poverty, health care, and education. Fifteen years ago, President Clinton awarded Cesar Chavez the Presidential Medal of Freedom, in recognition of his great contributions to our Nation. Today we remember his work not only for the U.S., but also for the communities and people of the State of California. San Diego is a city with a rich cultural heritage, and a history of community organizing and activism that shares its roots with Cesar Chavez's lifelong struggle for justice and equality. Cesar Chavez accomplished a great deal to improve living and working conditions for all people, and I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill to recognize his work and his memory.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, the need for health care reform is undeniable and we must undertake comprehensive efforts to provide quality care for our Nation's diverse populations, particularly older Americans. Our aging population is expected to almost double in number, from 37 million people today to about 72 million by 2030. If we fail to prepare, our Nation will face a crisis in providing care to these older Americans. We must start now if we are going to adequately train the health care workforce to meet the needs of an aging America. 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, only about 7,100 U.S. physicians are certified geriatricians today; 36,000 are needed by 2030. Just 4 percent of social workers and only 3 percent of advance practice nurses specialize in geriatrics. 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 Senator Collins and I are introducing 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 meaningful loan forgiveness and career advancement opportunities. Specifically, for health professionals who complete specialty training in geriatrics or gerontology--including physicians, physician assistants, advance practice nurses, social workers, pharmacists and psychologists--the legislation would link educational loan repayment to a service commitment to the aging population, modeled after the successful National Health Services Corps. The bill would also expand loan repayment for registered nurses who complete specialty training in geriatric care and who choose to work in long-term care settings, and expand career advancement opportunities for direct care workers by offering specialty training in long-term care services. Lastly, the legislation would establish a health and long-term care workforce advisory panel for an aging America. In addition, I was pleased to work with the Alzheimer's Association and the American Geriatrics Society to ensure that this legislation will also help provide a workforce to meet the needs of older Americans with dementia, Alzheimer's and other cognitive disorders. 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 Senator Collins and our colleagues to ensure that we meet our obligations to the seniors of our Nation to improve their care.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, as we engage in the debate on health care reform, it is critical that we address the need to invest in health research and innovation to spur the development of new treatments and cures for diseases. Today, I am proud to introduce two bills, S. 755 and S. 756, that would direct Federal investment in new programs that would develop tools to detect ovarian and prostate cancers. We know that early and reliable detection of these cancers can save lives. These bills make sure we have the tools we need to catch these cancers early, when they can be treated thereby significantly increasing survival rates. First, the Ovarian Cancer Biomarker Research Act provides funding for research directed toward the development of reliable screening techniques for ovarian cancer--a critical investment in the future of any woman who will face ovarian cancer. Though only one in 72 women will face ovarian cancer in their lifetime, this disease ranks fifth in cancer deaths among women and causes more deaths than any other cancer of the female reproductive system. In the last year alone, the National Cancer Institute, NCI, estimated there were 15,520 deaths from ovarian cancer in the U.S. For many years, ovarian cancer has been called the ``silent killer'' because too often women are diagnosed with this disease too late to be saved. But when ovan cancer is diagnosed early, more than 93 percent of women survive longer than 5 years. Because there is currently no effective screening test available, 4 out of 5 ovarian cancer cases in the U.S. are diagnosed in the later stages, when a woman's chance of surviving more than 5 years drops to 46 percent. The Ovarian Cancer Biomarker Research Act would authorize NCI to make grants for public or nonprofit entities to establish research centers focused on ovarian cancer biomarkers. Biomarkers are biochemical features within the body that can be used to measure the progress of a disease and predict the effects of treatment. This legislation also authorizes funding for a national clinical trial that will enroll at- risk women in a study to determine the clinical utility of using these validated ovarian cancer biomarkers. The Society of Gynecologic Oncologists, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the Ovarian Cancer National Alliance, and the American College of Surgeons have all joined together in support of this research developing tools to detect ovarian cancer early, because they know it is critical to improving the rate of survival for women struck by this disease. The second bill, the Prostate Imaging, Research and Men's Education Act, addresses the urgent need for the development of new technologies to detect and diagnose prostate cancer. Prostate cancer is the second most common cancer in the U.S., and the second leading cause of cancer related deaths in men--striking 1 in every 6 men. In 2008, it was estimated that more than 186,000 men were diagnosed with prostate cancer, and more than 28,000 men died from the disease. The Prostate Research, Imaging, and Men's Education Act, or PRIME Act, would mirror the investment the Federal Government made in advanced imaging technologies, which led to life-saving breakthroughs in detection, diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer. This bill directs the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to expand prostate cancer research, and provides the resources to develop innovative advanced imaging technologies for prostate cancer detection, diagnosis, and treatment. In addition, the PRIME Act would create a national campaign to increase awareness about the need for prostate cancer screening, and works with the Offices of Minority Health at HHS and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to ensure that this information reaches the men most at risk from this disease. The PRIME Act will also promote research that improves prostate cancer screening blood tests. According to a National Cancer Institute study, current blood tests result in false-negative reassurances and numerous false-positive alarms. Some 15 percent of men with normal blood test levels actually have prostate cancer. Even when levels are abnormal, some 88 percent of men end up not having prostate cancer but undergo unnecessary biopsies. Furthermore, the prostate is one of the last organs in a human body where biopsies are performed blindly, which can miss cancer even when multiple samples are taken. Government initiatives in research and education can be the key to diagnosing prostate or ovarian cancers earlier and more accurately. These two bills would strengthen our efforts to fight these diseases. These bills are of vital importance to thousands of men and women across our great Nation, and the families and friends who are concerned for their continued health. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the House and Senate to get these bills passed as soon as possible.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I join Representative Susan Davis in commemorating Cesar E. Chavez's 82nd birthday by introducing legislation to name a post office in San Diego, CA, after this extraordinary civil rights activist and union leader. Today we join millions of people across this Nation in honoring Cesar Chavez's legacy as an educator, environmentalist, and a civil rights leader who was committed to providing fair wages, better working conditions, decent housing, and quality education for all. As an activist, Chavez worked to give a voice to the voiceless, and inspire millions of Americans to stand up and say, ``Si, Se Puede!'' As a migrant farm worker in his youth, Cesar E. Chavez learned about the struggles of farm workers including poor wages, poor medical coverage, and poor working conditions. When he returned from serving his country in the Navy during World War II, Chavez began to work to improve this situation, first by organizing for the Community Service Organization coordinating voter-registration drives and battling racial and economic discrimination. In 1962 Cesar Chavez founded the National Farm Workers Association, later to become the United Farm Workers, the largest farm workers union in the country. Using nonviolent tactics, such as boycotts, pickets, and strikes, Chavez raised awareness about the plight of farm workers. Cesar Chavez's unflagging determination made great strides in championing the rights of farm workers, but the struggle for farm workers continues. This year, thousands of workers across California are preparing to march, and continue the fight for their rights. Cesar Chavez's life and legacy should serve not only as an example but an inspiration to us all as we work to address the growing inequality in our nation, as well as the challenges faced by America's working families, including poverty, health care, and education. Fifteen years ago, President Clinton awarded Cesar Chavez the Presidential Medal of Freedom, in recognition of his great contributions to our Nation. Today we remember his work not only for the U.S., but also for the communities and people of the State of California. San Diego is a city with a rich cultural heritage, and a history of community organizing and activism that shares its roots with Cesar Chavez's lifelong struggle for justice and equality. Cesar Chavez accomplished a great deal to improve living and working conditions for all people, and I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill to recognize his work and his memory.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, the need for health care reform is undeniable and we must undertake comprehensive efforts to provide quality care for our Nation's diverse populations, particularly older Americans. Our aging population is expected to almost double in number, from 37 million people today to about 72 million by 2030. If we fail to prepare, our Nation will face a crisis in providing care to these older Americans. We must start now if we are going to adequately train the health care workforce to meet the needs of an aging America. 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, only about 7,100 U.S. physicians are certified geriatricians today; 36,000 are needed by 2030. Just 4 percent of social workers and only 3 percent of advance practice nurses specialize in geriatrics. 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 Senator Collins and I are introducing 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 meaningful loan forgiveness and career advancement opportunities. Specifically, for health professionals who complete specialty training in geriatrics or gerontology--including physicians, physician assistants, advance practice nurses, social workers, pharmacists and psychologists--the legislation would link educational loan repayment to a service commitment to the aging population, modeled after the successful National Health Services Corps. The bill would also expand loan repayment for registered nurses who complete specialty training in geriatric care and who choose to work in long-term care settings, and expand career advancement opportunities for direct care workers by offering specialty training in long-term care services. Lastly, the legislation would establish a health and long-term care workforce advisory panel for an aging America. In addition, I was pleased to work with the Alzheimer's Association and the American Geriatrics Society to ensure that this legislation will also help provide a workforce to meet the needs of older Americans with dementia, Alzheimer's and other cognitive disorders. 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 Senator Collins and our 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 engage in the debate on health care reform, it is critical that we address the need to invest in health research and innovation to spur the development of new treatments and cures for diseases. Today, I am proud to introduce two bills, S. 755 and S. 756, that would direct Federal investment in new programs that would develop tools to detect ovarian and prostate cancers. We know that early and reliable detection of these cancers can save lives. These bills make sure we have the tools we need to catch these cancers early, when they can be treated thereby significantly increasing survival rates. First, the Ovarian Cancer Biomarker Research Act provides funding for research directed toward the development of reliable screening techniques for ovarian cancer--a critical investment in the future of any woman who will face ovarian cancer. Though only one in 72 women will face ovarian cancer in their lifetime, this disease ranks fifth in cancer deaths among women and causes more deaths than any other cancer of the female reproductive system. In the last year alone, the National Cancer Institute, NCI, estimated there were 15,520 deaths from ovarian cancer in the U.S. For many years, ovarian cancer has been called the ``silent killer'' because too often women are diagnosed with this disease too late to be saved. But when ovan cancer is diagnosed early, more than 93 percent of women survive longer than 5 years. Because there is currently no effective screening test available, 4 out of 5 ovarian cancer cases in the U.S. are diagnosed in the later stages, when a woman's chance of surviving more than 5 years drops to 46 percent. The Ovarian Cancer Biomarker Research Act would authorize NCI to make grants for public or nonprofit entities to establish research centers focused on ovarian cancer biomarkers. Biomarkers are biochemical features within the body that can be used to measure the progress of a disease and predict the effects of treatment. This legislation also authorizes funding for a national clinical trial that will enroll at- risk women in a study to determine the clinical utility of using these validated ovarian cancer biomarkers. The Society of Gynecologic Oncologists, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the Ovarian Cancer National Alliance, and the American College of Surgeons have all joined together in support of this research developing tools to detect ovarian cancer early, because they know it is critical to improving the rate of survival for women struck by this disease. The second bill, the Prostate Imaging, Research and Men's Education Act, addresses the urgent need for the development of new technologies to detect and diagnose prostate cancer. Prostate cancer is the second most common cancer in the U.S., and the second leading cause of cancer related deaths in men--striking 1 in every 6 men. In 2008, it was estimated that more than 186,000 men were diagnosed with prostate cancer, and more than 28,000 men died from the disease. The Prostate Research, Imaging, and Men's Education Act, or PRIME Act, would mirror the investment the Federal Government made in advanced imaging technologies, which led to life-saving breakthroughs in detection, diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer. This bill directs the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to expand prostate cancer research, and provides the resources to develop innovative advanced imaging technologies for prostate cancer detection, diagnosis, and treatment. In addition, the PRIME Act would create a national campaign to increase awareness about the need for prostate cancer screening, and works with the Offices of Minority Health at HHS and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to ensure that this information reaches the men most at risk from this disease. The PRIME Act will also promote research that improves prostate cancer screening blood tests. According to a National Cancer Institute study, current blood tests result in false-negative reassurances and numerous false-positive alarms. Some 15 percent of men with normal blood test levels actually have prostate cancer. Even when levels are abnormal, some 88 percent of men end up not having prostate cancer but undergo unnecessary biopsies. Furthermore, the prostate is one of the last organs in a human body where biopsies are performed blindly, which can miss cancer even when multiple samples are taken. Government initiatives in research and education can be the key to diagnosing prostate or ovarian cancers earlier and more accurately. These two bills would strengthen our efforts to fight these diseases. These bills are of vital importance to thousands of men and women across our great Nation, and the families and friends who are concerned for their continued health. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the House and Senate to get these bills passed as soon as possible.

Mrs. BOXER

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

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I came to the floor to talk about the budget debate. I think it is very important that we let the American people know where we are on the budget and what this debate is really all about. We have a new President and we have a new budget, thank goodness. We have a budget that reflects the hopes and dreams of the American people. We have a budget that is going to cut the deficit in half by the time this President's term is over. We have a budget that is absolutely open in terms of the way it spends our money and the way it saves our money. It is important that we take a look at the type of economy this young President inherited: Record deficits. Record deficits that President George W. Bush's own party supported. It is very important that we remember that when George W. Bush got the key to the Oval Office, we had surpluses. Then we saw a 50-percent increase in spending. We saw a debt that was about to be put away go up in major proportions. We are seeing the playing out of the worst recession since the Great Depression, a financial market in crisis, and a housing market in crisis because of the deregulation that was the centerpiece of George W. Bush's and the Republicans' leadership. We are paying the price of those years today. We have a young President who came into office and said: Be patient, we are going to change the way we do business in this country. And we are going to do that. We started with the stimulus bill that got not one Republican vote on the House side, although some of my Republican friends over there are running around my State taking credit for the bill they voted against. We had three Republicans over here, whom I praise mightily for having the courage to do the right thing and get this economy back on track. We have seen the loss of 3.3 million jobs in the last 6 months. The President is dealing with two ongoing wars that, by the way, were never paid for in the budget. They were taken off the budget. He now puts them in the budget so that the American people can see the truth. President Bush put them in emergency spending even though we knew he needed to fund them. What we have in the President's budget is a refreshing change of reality, honesty, integrity, and investments that have to be made. What are we getting from our Republican friends? We are getting just what we got when the Clinton budget passed without one Republican vote. I want to take us back to that because I think it is very interesting, intriguing, and enlightening to see what our Republican friends said about the last Democratic President's budget. You would have thought the sky was falling. You would have thought the universe would never survive. I have some of the quotes they made about the Clinton budgets. If people will remember, Al Gore, as Vice President, had to come over here and cast the tie-breaking vote on that budget. Here is what happened as a result of that budget; we will talk about that first. As a result of the Clinton budget, we saw 23 million new jobs created in this country--not millions of jobs lost but 23 million jobs created. What happened to the deficit under the Clinton budget? It went down, down, down, and we wound up with a surplus. We voted for the Clinton budget, the first Democratic budget in a while, and what happened? Twenty-three million new jobs were created and the budget was in balance. As a matter of fact, George W. Bush, when he took the keys to the Oval Office, had a surplus. What happened with the Republican rule? Deficits as far as the eye can see. These are the facts. This isn't rhetoric--debt of $10 trillion, $11 trillion. Let's look at what the Republicans said about the Clinton budget that we know, because time has passed, history has shown, created 23 million jobs, stopped the deficits, turned them into surpluses, and got the debt going on the way down. What did our Republican friends say then? Wayne Allard said then as a Representative: In summary, the plan has a fatal flaw--it does not reduce the deficit. Wrong. Wrong. Wayne Allard continued: So we are still going to pile up some more debt, but most of all, we are going to cost jobs in this country. That is what Republican Wayne Allard said about the Clinton budget-- ``. . . we are still going to pile up some more debt, but most of all, we are going to cost jobs. . . .'' Wrong--23 million jobs created. Senator Pete Domenici said of the Clinton budget that created 23 million jobs and turned the deficit into a surplus: It's just a mockery. Our friend, Senator Orrin Hatch, a leader of the Republicans, still here and going strong, I am happy to say, he is my friend--he said: Make no mistake, these higher rates will cost jobs. Talking about the Clinton budget and the taxes in it. Make no mistake, these higher rates will cost jobs. Wrong--23 million jobs created. How about Senator Phil Gramm, one of the leaders of the Republicans in the Senate at the time of the Clinton budget that created 23 million jobs, took the deficit, turned it into surplus, what did he say? I want to predict here tonight that if we adopt this bill, the American economy is going to get weaker and not stronger, the deficit 4 years from today will be higher than it is today and not lower. . . . When all is said and done, people will pay more taxes, the economy will create fewer jobs, Government will spend more money, and the American people will be worse off. Wrong. Phil Gramm was wrong. Oh, Phil Gramm, he is the one who said this recession was in our minds. Here is another quote of Phil Gramm--remember, he was a leader of the Republicans then--talking about the Clinton budget that created 23 million jobs and cut our deficit and turned it into a surplus: . . . [T]his program is going to make the economy weaker. . . . Hundreds of thousands of people are going to lose their jobs as a result of this program. Guess what he also said: I believe that hundreds of thousands of people are going to lose their jobs as a result of this program. I believe that Bill Clinton will be one of those people. Bill Clinton got reelected and the economy created 23 million jobs, the deficits went down, we had a surplus, and the debt was almost eviscerated. What did our good friend Chuck Grassley say? Chuck Grassley is our good friend. He has taken a lead against this budget document. He is one of the leaders against the Obama budget. Let's see what he said about the Clinton budget that created 23 million new jobs and cut the deficits, turned them into surpluses, and had the debt going down, one of the most prosperous times in our history as a result of the Clinton budget. What did Chuck Grassley say? I really do not think it takes a rocket scientist to know this bill will cost jobs. Wrong. Connie Mack, another leader, a friend of mine, now retired, a Republican leader--this is what he said about the Clinton budget: This bill will cost America jobs, no doubt about it. Bill Roth said: It will flatten the economy. . . . I am concerned what it will do to jobs. I am concerned what it will do to our families, our communities, to our children's future. Senator Roth was wrong--23 million jobs created, one of the most prosperous times in our Nation's history, deficits went down, debt on the way out. So our Republicans have a visceral reaction when there is a Democratic President. They come and they excoriate our Democratic President, and they are wrong. They are wrong. Look at the record. This is the beauty of what I am saying. I do not have to defend it. I know what they said, and I know what happened to the economy. Newt Gingrich--still a major leader in the Republican Party, some people say the leader--about the Democratic President's budget, Bill Clinton: ``It will kill jobs.'' Wrong. It will ``lead to a recession, and the recession will force people off of work and onto unemployment and will . . . increase the deficit.'' Wrong. John Kasich--we have seen him on television a lot. He was a leader then in the Republican Party. This is what he said about Bill Clinton's budget, not dissimilar to the Barak Obama budget in the sense that it is a plan to cut the deficit and make investments--make good investments. This is what he said: This plan will not work. If it was to work, I'd have to become a Democrat . . . John, if you are watching me, it is your time because the plan worked--23 million jobs. You didn't become a Democrat. You said you would. Peter King--what did Peter King say about the Clinton budget that created 23 million jobs and cured the deficit problem? [I]t is because of budgets such as this that the economy is going to be damaged. Wrong. Wrong. Flash forward. We know what happened under Bill Clinton. We know about the 23 million jobs. We know what happened to the debt. It went down. We know what happened to the deficits. They turned into surpluses. George W. Bush takes the White House, the Republicans take over, and what happened? The worst recession since the Great Depression, terrible loss of jobs, deficits record high, which they never complained about, debt record high. We get a new President who comes in and says: I have a plan to turn it all around. What do they do? They come down to the floor with the same old politics. If I gave you the quotes I am hearing of my colleagues--Senator Shelby is all over, they are all over the place--disaster, Armageddon, the world is ending, we are going to lose jobs, we are going to have deficits as far as the eye can see; what a nightmare. It is the same old politics and, by the way, the same old policies, which is tax breaks for the wealthiest among us, shorting the investments that the people of this country need, not tackling health care, not tackling energy, not tackling education--all the things this President wants-- not tackling the deficits, and we have to know they got us into this crisis. I do not enjoy reiterating all of this because it brings back some fights I was in. But I am going to do it every day as long as I hear the same rhetoric, the same politics, the same policies that got us into this mess in the first place. The American people had a choice in November. They had a choice in Senate races, they had a choice in House races, they had a choice in the Presidential race. Did they want the same old politics, did they want the same old policies that got us into the crisis? Guess what they said. They wanted change, and they are getting change. We have the same rhetoric flowing from my friends on the other side of the aisle. I thought they were going to change the image of their party. I thought they were going to change the message of their party. It is the same old stuff. You could substitute a name for a name. It is the same thing they are saying about the Barak Obama budget that they said about the Clinton budget, and it doesn't fly because our new President understands we have to make some changes. He understands we need to invest in America's future, in jobs, in health care, in energy independence, and in education. We know the deficit predictions are different coming out of the Congressional Budget Office than they are coming out of the White House office. Everybody knows we are going to adjust this budget here and there to make sure the numbers reflect reality. This President understands that. I watched him at his press conference. He said: What I care about is jobs, health care, energy independence, education, and deficit reduction, he added. That is a major focus of his agenda. He says: As long as I get jobs, health care, energy independence, education, and deficit reduction, I am a happy person. The President is coming today to the Hill to meet with us. I am very much anticipating his presentation. We know what this President inherited. We know the fiscal mismanagement. We know the misplaced priorities. We know, we know, we know. The American people understand that is why this President, despite getting pounded day after day on this floor, on the airwaves, and on conservative talk shows, is still maintaining a strong majority of Americans who say: Give this man a chance. Who else in history inherited two wars and the biggest economic nightmare since the Great Depression? Nobody. The wars were not of his making, and the economic mess is not of his making. He is addressing them. He addressed it in the stimulus package that is going to start to pay off for us. It is tough times, but he is doing what has to be done. He went forward and he said: You know what, I have a plan to get these banks on their feet. He was honest. He said: I have bad choices and worst choices. If there is a tragedy in our families and we find out one of our loved ones has cancer and the doctor comes to us and says: There are two treatments. There is a tough chemotherapy treatment and there is a tough radiation treatment. You have to pick between those two treatments to cure this cancer. It is a hard choice. Our President faces very hard choices when it comes to straightening out this mess. But the American people want him to try and try he is. If we can get these bad assets off the hands of these banks and get them lending again, we basically save the financial system. If we don't save the financial system, we are going to have to take it over. This President does not want to do that and I do not want to do that and I do not think most Americans want that. So he is doing what it takes. The housing crisis--I am so happy to hear people are refinancing. It is very important. That is going to put more money in the pockets of people. It is going to make it more affordable for them to stay in their homes. Our President has a budget blueprint to get us out of this mess. We all know he is not going to get every line in there he wants. He knows that. Senator Conrad is working with him. We will have a reserve fund in there for the things we want to do for health care and energy, and I am going to work very hard so we can, in fact, have a cap-and-trade system that brings funding in and puts people to work, it gets us off dirty energy. We will have the ability to do that. The point is, this President deserves to have his priorities in place. I wish to say in closing to my Republican friends: Go back a few years in time. See how wrong you were. Admit that you were wrong. Then go back and see what you said about the Bush budget. I didn't get a chance to go through those quotes. I will do that the next time I take the floor. When the Bush budget came down and we saw what happened with the Bush budgets, they were adopted by Republicans, and they received lots of votes from their side, unanimous. All we had out of that was unemployment and deficits. They said: Oh, this is going to be a great budget. They are wrong. They have been wrong--wrong on the Clinton budget, wrong on the Bush budget, and now they are wrong on the Obama budget. As one Senator, I wish to say this: I never forget. I forgive all the time, but I never forget. I have these quotes. They are real. They are in the Record. I am going to bring them out constantly. Remember, when you hear these Republicans come out and trash Barak Obama's budget, it is the same thing they did to the Clinton budget and they were wrong--wrong then and they are wrong now. We have to give this President the support he needs. Not that we are going to give every line--I don't agree with every line in it--but basically the thrust of what he wants, the investments and the deficit reduction. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, due to an illness, I was forced to miss the previous two rollcall votes. The first vote was on the nomination of Elena Kagan to be the Solicitor General of the United States. The second vote was on cloture on the motion to proceed to national service bill. Had I been present for these two rollcall votes, I would have voted aye. Elena Kagan has the qualifications and intellect to be an outstanding Solicitor General. I am proud that she is the first woman to hold this important position. I also support the motion to proceed to the national service bill and am disappointed that it is necessary to invoke cloture to break the filibuster against this bipartisan legislation. It is important that we act to expand opportunities for Americans who volunteer their time and talents in service to their communities.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, it is with deep sadness that I discuss one of the deadliest attacks against California law enforcement in my State's history--an attack that took the lives of four Oakland, CA, police officers, and has left our community reeling from the shock of this terrible and senseless loss. Every day, our law enforcement officers selflessly and bravely put their lives on the line to protect our families and our communities. If anyone, anywhere, needed a reminder of that, this tragedy puts a spotlight on the risk our police officers face every day. On Saturday, March 21, what should have been a routine midday traffic stop for Oakland PD officers Mark Dunakin and John Hege quickly turned into a murder scene. After fatally wounding both officers, the suspect fled the scene, leading to a frantic manhunt that involved more than 200 officers from Oakland PD, Alameda County Sheriff's Office, BART Police and the California Highway Patrol. The suspect was quickly tracked down to an apartment. But when the SWAT team entered the apartment, he fired a series of shots from inside of a closet, fatally wounding officers Daniel Sakai and Ervin Romans, and injuring a third, before he was shot and killed. In the days and weeks ahead, we will have important debates about the problems with our justice system that allowed a violent offender to be on the streets in clear violation of his parole. And we will debate the issue of powerful weapons in the hands of dangerous criminals. As these debates move forward, I will work to give our law enforcement officers more support and more resources to adequately protect our communities and protect themselves. Now I want to pay tribute to these four fallen officers. Sergeant Mark Dunakin, age 40, was an 18-year veteran of Oakland PD. He was no stranger to violent crime, having worked homicide cases in the criminal investigation division. But he later transferred to the motorcycle traffic division where his days focused on patrolling our streets on his beloved Harley Davidson, cracking down on drunk drivers and trying to always enforce our State's seatbelt laws. Sergeant Dunakin is survived by his wife Angela Schwab and their three children. Officer John Hege, age 41, had been with the Oakland PD for 10 years and had only recently started his dream assignment of becoming part of the motorcycle traffic division. Respected by his colleagues and well liked by his neighbors, Officer Hege was often known to lend a helping hand, and even found time to umpire high school baseball in his free time. After being gunned down this weekend, Officer Hege was declared brain dead. And true to the heroism he exhibited in his life, his organs are being donated to help save other lives. Officer Hege is survived by his father and his beloved dog. Sergeant Ervin Romans, age 43, had been with the Oakland PD since 1996. As a member of the elite SWAT team, Romans was in charge of entering the most dangerous situations to confront and arrest barricaded suspects. Known as just ``Erv'' to his friends and colleagues, he was among a group of officers awarded the department's prestigious Medal of Valor in 1999 for helping to evacuate residents during a fire. His captain, Ed Tracey said he ``had an exterior image of being the tough, rugged guy, but everyone knows he has a soft heart.'' Sergeant Romans is survived by his three children. Sergeant Daniel Sakai, age 35, had recently been named a leader of the entry SWAT team, and was known to all as a rising star. Before joining the SWAT team, Sergeant Sakai worked in the K-9 division, responding to calls with his dog, Doc. He studied forestry at UC Berkeley, where he was a member of the Alpha Sigma Phi fraternity. He also worked as a community service officer at Berkeley, escorting students around campus at night. He is survived by his wife Jennifer, a UC Berkeley police officer, and their daughter. My thoughts and prayers are with the families, friends, and colleagues of these fallen officers in this tragic time. We must come together to support those suffering, and in the coming days we must come together, firmly resolved to end the violence that has for too long eaten away at the fabric of our communities.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that after the conclusion of my remarks, Senator Whitehouse have the floor, and then Senator Shaheen.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, we just took a very important vote on a very important bill that is good for our country and good for our families. It is good for our heritage. It is good for our economy because I would argue that when we preserve magnificent places in our land, it encourages people to come and see those places and spend time around those places and spend money around those places, and that helps our economy. I thank the leaders of the Energy Committee on both sides of the aisle, Senators Bingaman and Murkowski, and others on the committee. I also thank the staff who worked hard, and I want to take exception to a remark by Senator Coburn. After the staff was thanked, he got up and said, ``Well, what staff works for the American people?'' Well, I would argue that all the staff here and all of the Senators here work for the American people. And even though Senator Coburn does not bless every provision in this bill, this bill has huge support because the bills in this package will protect some of the most breathtaking places in the Nation, areas that provide a refuge for birdwatchers, hikers, campers, equestrians, fishermen, and other visitors who are looking to escape our Nation's crowded, fast-passed cities to enjoy the tranquility of nature. I am going to show a few pictures. This is in the Eastern Sierra, the bighorn sheep. We are protecting this magnificent creature that I know Senator Harkin appreciates. The bald eagle, which we know we have been doing a lot to save, will be preserved in the many acres we preserve in my home State of California. In the Riverside bill, this is another magnificent scene of the mountains and the beautiful vegetation that grows without any water to speak of. The Eastern Sierra, these White Mountains--imagine the beauty of this. So when people come and say we are not doing right by America to save areas such as this, all I say is, open your eyes and gaze upon God's creation. It is so magnificent. I have one more photo I would like to show you. I know Senator Schumer feels the way I do about this. In the Eastern Sierras, this beautiful creek here, a beautiful place to come and enjoy the day, as I said, get away from our crowded cities, bring your family, and stay in the area. Many bills in this package provide much needed water resources for our communities. It provides recycled water to areas suffering from drought, restoring major watersheds. We are experiencing one of the worst droughts in our State's history. That is why a coalition of 16 western water agencies and organizations wrote to Congress about the urgency of passing this bill that we happily just passed. You saw some of the magnificent photos of some of the wilderness areas in California that have been saved. They are in what is called the California Desert and Mountain Heritage Act, the Sequoia-Kings Canyon National Park Wilderness Act, and the Eastern Sierra and Northern San Gabriel Wild Heritage Act. I want to make a point to colleagues. On each of these wilderness areas, I worked with colleagues in the House, many of whom are Republicans, and I thank them enormously for their work: Buck McKeon, Mary Bono Mack, Devin Nunes. I also worked with many Democrats, including Jim Costa. So we have had a wonderful working relationship across party lines. There are 700,000 acres of wilderness and/or wilderness study areas and 105 miles of wild and scenic rivers in this bill in my home State. I would say again to Senator Coburn, although I suppose the best thing I can say to him is his argument did not win the day, is that it is our responsibility, I would say to him, to protect these magnificent areas so future generations can enjoy them exactly as we do. These are breathtaking places in California. They provide critically important habitat, as you saw, for the Peninsular bighorn sheep, the mule deer, mountain lions, desert tortoises, and bald eagles. Again, the economics of this are very clear. In a time of recession, we want to look to the future for jobs, and we know that wilderness bills, just the three of mine in this bill, will produce an estimated 420 jobs and $7 million in income to my State. I cannot say enough about the importance of opportunities such as this when you save the environment and you create jobs and everybody comes away a winner. I would like to respond to some things Senator Coburn has been saying about one of these bills, the California Desert and Mountain Heritage Act. He has questioned why we are designating Beauty Mountain and the Pinto Mountains as wilderness in this bill even though the Bureau of Land Management failed to recommend them for wilderness back in 1990. Well, the answer is that a lot has changed since then--private lands have since been acquired by the BLM and dozens of mining claims have been retired. Without these restrictions, the BLM now supports wilderness designation for these areas and has testified before Congress in support of this bill. Also, Congress has repeatedly asserted its right to name wilderness areas--the agencies make recommendations but we make the final decision based on what we are hearing from the constituents we represent. These three bills have bipartisan, bicameral, and diverse support. They would not impact the use of private lands, but would simply improve the protection of existing Forest Service, National Park Service, or Bureau of Land Management lands. While preserving these areas, we have been careful to accommodate stakeholders' needs. For example, we worked to clarify that the Eastern Sierra and Northern San Gabriel Wild Heritage bill's designation of a Wild and Scenic River on segments of Piru Creek will not affect the operations of the United Water Conservation District or Pyramid Dam on the creek, including any rights they may have to modify water releases. I will close by thanking my colleague, Senator Feinstein, for not only supporting my wilderness bills that are in here but for her leadership in the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act, which is included in this bill. Senator Coburn tried to remove it from this bill. I do not understand his motivation. The settlement ended 18 years of litigation over the impacts of the Friant Dam on Chinook salmon populations. Why on Earth would anyone try to derail a settlement and drive us back into the courthouse? What is in here is a carefully crafted compromise solution that is good for our environment, for our agricultural economy, and for our urban communities. Again, there is more to be said on this matter. I will say again, to see Senator Coburn get up and try to torpedo this important legislation was kind of shocking to me because once in a while I say we should come together here to preserve our Nation's heritage and to try to avoid litigation. You know, the fact is, the San Joaquin settlement had broad bipartisan support, has it in my State, from the Governor. We even have the support of the outgoing Bush administration, bipartisan House Members, water agencies, conservation groups, elected officials. So it is a happy day, frankly, for my State of California, a very happy day--700,000 acres of wilderness, the settlement over the San Joaquin River--and for this whole Nation it is a wonderful moment because we addressed the drought some of our areas are facing. The areas in this bill are truly magnificent places representing California's and the Nation's incredible range of landscapes and habitats. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to enact this bill into law and protect these treasures for future generations of Americans. I hope this bill will get much attention. I hope the President will have a ceremony when he signs this bill because it deserve far more attention than it has been getting. It is good for the environment, it is good for the economy, and it shows a spirit of bipartisanship that I know our President and all of us encourage. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

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

Mrs. BOXER. What is the order, please?

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise to talk about a couple issues. The first is to add my voice to the outrage over the bonuses to people who to say don't deserve it is an understatement. I used to work on Wall Street a very long time ago. You got a bonus when you did something good, when you brought business in, when you did well for the company, not when you brought the company down. It is disgusting, disgraceful. We are hearing outrage from all quarters of society, which means we are going to do something about it. I wanted to make sure I am on the record as saying the bonuses ought to be returned voluntarily and, if not, they ought to be taxed as close to 100 percent as we can get. I will be supporting that. It is time to change the culture in corporate America. If you are going to turn to taxpayers for help, then don't squander their money. Work to pay it back as fast as you can and get back on your own. It is such an obvious point. I wish to praise the President for being clear on this point. I also came to talk about the upcoming debate we will be having on the budget. I was a long-time member of the Budget Committee and then moved off to take other assignments. But I have always respected the work of that committee because the budget is truly a roadmap to the priorities of a nation. When we look at a budget, surely there will be certain items in it we may not want to agree with. We may want to trim it here and there. I don't agree with everything in the Obama budget. There are a few I will work to change. In general, at this time when we are suffering so economically, the priorities laid out are good for America and good for the State of California. I wish to talk about a couple of these priorities. We know the Obama administration inherited an economic nightmare from George Bush's administration: 4.4 million jobs lost in the last 14 months; an unemployment rate that is soaring--in my State it is in double digits--12.5 million Americans unemployed, and a Federal debt that is going upward very quickly. What is so interesting to me is that when Bill Clinton handed over the keys to the White House to George W. Bush, our budget was actually in a surplus. We actually had discussions in my household about the fact that the debt is going down so fast, we may not have the opportunity to buy any more Treasury bonds. Let's not forget what happened in 8 years. A budget surplus turned into outrageous deficits. The economy took a terrible turn for the worse. The debt began to soar. Now we have a new President who ran on a platform of change. As I watch my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, save a few, they are fighting for the status quo. My belief is, if you fight for the status quo, that is not a passive act. It is a hostile act. Because the status quo has to change so we can relieve some of the pain in America. What President Obama does with this budget, very wisely, is to continue the economic stimulus he started with his economic stimulus bill. He focuses on three priorities: education, health care, and clean energy. Everyone knows--and I know my friend in the chair has a young son--what President Obama said is true. Countries that outteach us today will outcompete us tomorrow. His young son and my grandchildren, if they don't get the education they deserve, will not have a chance to get that dream we had the opportunity to get in our generation. For every dollar invested in education, there is a $4 to $9 return in higher earnings, higher employment rates, less crime, less welfare, and in better health. The Obama plan will double the number of children served by Early Head Start and will expand Head Start. He will provide resources to reward effective teachers and effective principals. He will increase the capacity of our young people to go to college on Pell grants. When we have a President who invests in education, we know we should support him because every dollar we invest comes back ninefold. Then the President invests in health care. We know the biggest cause of bankruptcy in America is when a family is hit with a catastrophic health problem and they are uninsured or their insurance is capped. We know premiums have grown four times faster than wages in the last 8 years. Our President is going to finally take on the issue of health care. We should stand with him. Does that mean we will support every little thing he recommends? It may not. We may agree on 90 percent. But we will move on health care because not to do so, again, is a hostile act because the current situation is unsustainable. The cost to families today is unsustainable. The fear families have--what if somebody gets a catastrophic illness, what will happen--is unforgivable. Lastly, we see our President investing in clean energy. What he is doing is looking at the future and recognizing that the old energy is not going to sustain us. If we want to lead the world, we have to do what Thomas Friedman suggests in his book ``Hot, Flat, and Crowded''-- step out and invent the new clean energy technologies. In doing that, we will lead the world in green jobs. We will lead the world in exports. If we adopt the cap-and-trade plan that is recommended by our President, we will see a robust economy because, once you put a price on carbon, all the other alternatives come up behind it, and it will lead us out of this economic morass. I believed it important to come to the Chamber today to speak to these two issues. We cannot abide by the outrageous bonuses in a company led by people who took the company down. We can't abide by that. In addition, we need to work with our new President and bring about the change he promised in his campaign. That change is reflected in his budget. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, during consideration of the Omnibus Appropriations Act, members of the minority party attempted to attach amendments in an effort to delay passage of this important bill. Because further delay in passing this bill could have resulted in the shutdown of the Federal Government, I voted against all amendments to the bill. I believe that this omnibus bill is important for job growth and will help revitalize our economy. That must be our concern at this critical time. I would like to clarify my position of some of these amendments: Amendment 630 would have required the Secretary of State to report on whether additional military aid to Egypt could be used to counter the illegal smuggling of weapons into Gaza. The omnibus bill already explicitly authorizes the use of military aid provided to Egypt for border security programs so the amendment was completely unnecessary. Amendment 631 would have prohibited funds for reconstruction efforts in Gaza unless the administration certifies that the funds will not be diverted to Hamas or entities controlled by Hamas. The Omnibus bill and permanent law already prohibit any funds from being provided to Hamas or entities controlled by Hamas so this amendment was also completely unnecessary. Amendment 634 would have prevented funds in this bill from going to companies that assist Iran's energy sector. While I have long supported tough action against Iran for its illicit nuclear program, sending this provision back to the House of Representatives could have endangered final passage of the bill. Amendment 613 would have cut off all U.S. funding for the United Nations if it imposes any tax on any United States person. The U.N. has never imposed a tax, is not a taxing organization, and if the U.N. ever decided it wanted to impose a tax the U.S. would veto it. This amendment is unnecessary. Amendment 604 would have extended the E-Verify worker identification program for an additional five years. The omnibus bill already contains a 6-month extension of this program. Amendment 662 would prohibit the use of funds by the Federal Communications Commission to promulgate the fairness doctrine. On February 26, 2009, I voted in favor of an amendment offered by the junior Senator from South Carolina to prevent the FCC from promulgating the fairness doctrine. This amendment passed the Senate as part of S. 160, the Washington, DC voting rights bill. Also, there are no provisions in the omnibus bill related to the fairness doctrine, making this amendment unnecessary. Amendment 604 repeals the provision of the Legislative Reorganization Act which grants Members an automatic pay adjustment each year. The amendment would take effect beginning December 11, 2010, and would require the enactment of new legislation to grant Members a pay raise. I believe the junior Senator from Louisiana was doing nothing more than playing politics with his amendment, as he objected to passing a stand- alone bill offered by the Senate majority leader that would have accomplished the same goal as the Vitter amendment. I would have supported passing the majority leader's bill.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, Senator Vitter wants to bring this bill down. He wants to score political points. Do you know what is in this bill? We stop our pay raise from next year. He wants to bring this bill down. We stop our pay raise in this bill. Senator Reid offered a unanimous consent request. All of us could have gone right down the aisle here together saying every year we vote on a cost-of-living raise. So don't be fooled by this. The people need our help, the help that is offered in this bill. People are unemployed. There is funding in this bill to get them back to work, to do the business of government. This bill stops our pay raise. This is a cheap shot, in my opinion. We ought to vote no.