Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read three times and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements be printed in the Record.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 9:30 a.m. Thursday, February 5; that following the prayer and the pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and that the Senate resume consideration of H.R. 1, the Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Inouye be able to make a UC and then I be granted the floor to speak in favor of the Murray amendment and for the waiver she will need.

Mrs. BOXER. I have not asked for a specific time. I would take 15 minutes.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise as the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee in favor of the Murray-Feinstein amendment, and I hope we will vote to waive this budget point of order. I want to tell you why. Senator Inhofe is correct that I will be working with him very proudly on a couple of amendments which will all be offset. But in general, we are in such a crisis in this country that we need to look at three things in this package: jobs, jobs, jobs. This package falls short. Once we get to the conference, I think some things will fall away. I do. But we need to boost the spending, it seems to me, on the most efficient programs that create jobs, and not just any type of job but good jobs--jobs in the construction industry where we have seen devastation hit our families. In my State of California, we have a 9.2-percent unemployment rate. Let me reiterate. In my State of California, we have a 9.2-percent unemployment rate. Were it not for our environmental laws which are putting people to work, putting solar rooftops on and the rest, I hate to think of where we would be because housing construction has literally stopped in its tracks. The importance of the Murray-Feinstein amendment is this: jobs, jobs, jobs. That is what the people want us to invest in. We know very well that when we invest money in the type of infrastructure we are talking about--highways, water systems, sewer systems--the jobs come along with it. We also know a lot of our physical infrastructure is failing. We can never get out of our minds the tragic collapse of the bridge in Minnesota. And when we look at the condition of our bridges across this great Nation of ours, we find there are way too many--maybe a quarter of them--in need of repair. So when we talk about this amendment, we are talking about adding funding for roads, for bridges, for transit, for rail, for ports, for drinking and wastewater infrastructure, which are the most efficient job creators. I think it is fair to ask, are our States and localities ready to spend these dollars or will they go there only to sit? The answer is, our States are more than ready. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, the backlog of needed improvements to simply maintain the current bridge and highway network is $495 billion. That is the backlog. This amendment is $25 billion, and as I understand it, that is being added to $27 billion. So we are at least adding more funding that is real. To me, it is not enough. That is why Senator Inhofe and I are going to have an amendment that says if the rest of the funds in this bill are not committed by a time certain, we are going to put up to $50 billion more into these accounts. I hope that passes, but this is a very important amendment. I hope we will pass it on a bipartisan vote, but the first step is to allow the budget act to be waived. The Department of Transportation also told us something else. They said that for every $1 billion invested in highways and bridges at the Federal level--and if that funding is matched--we could create and maintain 34,800 jobs. That is 34,800 jobs for $1 billion invested at the Federal level. I want to sort of shake my friends, in a nice way, and remind them that a million jobs were lost in this great Nation in the last couple of months--a half million in December and a half million in January. By the way, a half million also in November. I want you to think about your States and how many families that is. The number of jobs that have been lost is bigger than some States--bigger than some States. Close your eyes and imagine the whole State of Delaware with every person unemployed. That is what has happened so far, and worse. We need to get ahead of ourselves here. What worries me about the Senate is that we are kind of chasing after this tiger called recession. It took the Bush administration forever to call it a recession. Then they finally called it a recession and said, well, hopefully, we will get over it quickly. But we keep chasing it, trying to grab it by the tail. We have to get in front of this recession or it will become a depression. You get in front of it by doing the things you know will create jobs. Now, is every single item in this bill something I support? No. But I support the infrastructure part, I support the help to the energy sector so we can get off foreign oil, I support building a smart grid, I support making sure people who are long-term unemployed get the chance to feed their families, and I support doing more about housing. But I surely know this, as chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, a dollar invested in the physical infrastructure, in rebuilding it, is a dollar that will create jobs--thousands and thousands and thousands of jobs. This amendment is a good amendment. It doesn't overreach. It underreaches. But it is a start. The next question might be: Well, Senator, I agree with you that this investment will create jobs, but have the States identified projects that will qualify? The State departments of transportation, according to the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, have identified over 5,000 projects of over $64 billion in value which could create nearly 1.8 million jobs. We could restore the jobs that have been lost in the last 2 months with this amendment. Our committee, the Committee on Environment and Public Works--and I have my good staff here--has surveyed many of these States and we have determined these projects are shovel ready. So let me say it again: $64 billion of shovel-ready projects, ready to go--1.8 million jobs. And the underlying bill falls short. The underlying bill falls short. If we pass the Murray-Feinstein-Boxer, et cetera, amendment, we will in fact move toward equaling that shovel- ready number we have. The American Public Transportation Association tells us that States have identified 787 ready-to-go public transit projects totaling $15.9 billion that would sustain thousands of jobs. The U.S. Conference of Mayors tells us there is a total of 15,000 ready-to-go infrastructure projects in 641 cities. So you have the States telling us they are ready, you have the transit districts saying they are ready, and you have the U.S. Conference of Mayors saying they are ready. And when I look at the underlying bill, I believe it didn't fund these projects to the tune they should have. This amendment also increases investments in drinking water and wastewater infrastructure. We are so far behind on those programs. If our kids can't drink the water, that is trouble. We need to make sure the drinking water is safe. If we have a sewer spill, that is a disaster. We need to get out ahead of that. A recent EPA study--and, Mr. President, you will be interested in this--found that failure to increase investment in water and wastewater infrastructure could result in a $500 billion water infrastructure gap in the next 20 years. That EPA study was done under George Bush. Okay, George Bush's EPA told us we could have an infrastructure gap of $500 billion in the next 20 years. So let's invest in water infrastructure. It will replace aging water pipes, expand treatment facilities, reduce pollution flowing into our Nation's rivers and streams and allow for implementation of projects to improve water efficiency. The Murray-Feinstein amendment, my friends, is critical. We don't do enough in the underlying bill. And for those who worry about an offset, we will find those in conference. We are going to keep this bill where President Obama wants it. We know that. But let's walk down the bipartisan lane on this one. We all know our States and our localities are crying out. We all know our people are hurting because they are not working. With this amendment, we create jobs in areas that we have to pay attention to anyway. Are we going to wait for our sewers to overflow into the streets? Are we going to wait for more bridges to collapse? I say that is ridiculous. You can't be a great economy when bridges are collapsing all around you, and our bridges are in trouble. So to say you won't vote for this amendment because it is $25 billion in an $800-plus billion, almost $900-plus billion bill, is shortsighted. I commit to working with my friends on the other side to find the offsets in this bill. It is not going to be that hard. I agree with Senator Inhofe, they are not in this bill, but we can work to get some offsets in the conference. Local people are saying to us, please, Senators, do something to help us get out there, spend the money on these shovel-ready projects--the highways, the bridges, the transit systems, the sewer systems, the safe drinking water issues. Help us do it. We can make this a far better bill. Private industry wants this, and these are private sector jobs. These are contracts that will be let for local contractors, small business, big business, union members, and nonunion members. This is what we should be doing in this bill. I signed a letter with Chairman Baucus on this very topic and, guess what, Senator Inhofe signed it, Senator Bond signed it, and we said we need to do more building of the infrastructure of our great country. The unemployment rate for construction workers is double the national unemployment rate. Listen to this: The unemployment rate for construction workers is 15.3 percent--15.3 percent in December-- compared to a 7.1-percent national unemployment. There are plenty of workers available. They are ready and they are excited to get to work. They have to support their families. They are suffering, they are worried, and they do not want to be on the Federal dole. They do not want to get food stamps. They do not want it. They want to work. They want to work. This is an important test of whether the Senate has a heart, frankly, and a brain, because I think this is where your brain and your heart come together with a yes vote. Because with our heart we know people are suffering. With our heart we know construction workers are suffering. With our brain we know that when they go to work and they pay taxes, we all benefit. With our brain we know when we rebuild the physical infrastructure our country is stronger and we set the predicate for a very strong economic recovery into the future. So I feel very strongly, as I am sure you can tell from the sound of my voice. I just hope we don't have a partisan vote. I think this is one where we should come together. We will find new offsets. President Obama is going to have a cap. He is going to say we don't want to spend more than X. We will make this work, but let's have a good vote on this motion to waive the budget act. I think our country will be better for it, and the people out there who are watching this debate will feel good that we know our construction workers are suffering and our construction companies are suffering, and this would go a long way to boost their confidence. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield for a question on this point?

Mrs. BOXER. Thank you. I will stay on the floor.

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

Mrs. BOXER. I am astounded by this new-found fiscal responsibility I hear from the other side of the aisle. I wish to ask my friend a question: Do you know what the debt was when Bill Clinton left office and George Bush took over and there was a Republican Congress? Do you know what it was at that time?

Mrs. BOXER. The debt was $5.7 trillion when George Bush and the Republicans took over. I will say to my friend, not to ask him a question, the debt today is $10.1 trillion; a doubling of the debt was brought to you courtesy of the Republicans. Does my friend know--I am sure he does--that when Bill Clinton left office, we had a surplus in our budget. We not only did not have a deficit, we had a surplus. My friend knows what George Bush left us with--hundreds of billions of dollars, hundreds of billions of dollars of debt. So for him to stand up now that the people are suffering and struggling and they need jobs and become the Herbert Hoover of current day times, I think it is hurtful to the American people. I say to my friend: Why is it that my friend now is suddenly talking about debt and did not discuss it when the Republicans were in charge?

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, may I have 60 seconds?

Mrs. BOXER. And I ask unanimous consent to extend that for 1\1/2\ minutes.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am not going to speak about the amendment I plan to offer in the next hour or so. But I really have to respond to my friend, Senator Ensign. Ironically, he and I are offering an amendment together. I have heard now several of my Republican friends come to the floor with the same comments over and over and over again: Don't rush this bill. Well, if you came from my State--and I was a little shocked to hear Senator Ensign because his State is going through a terrible time--where we have a 9.2-percent unemployment rate and jobs being lost every minute, maybe you should look inside yourself and roll up your sleeves and get to work with us. I find it extraordinary that after 8 long years of Republican rule around here, where we saw the debt go from $5 trillion to $10 trillion, and not a word from the other side about fiscal responsibility, with tax cut after tax cut to the wealthiest few, an unlimited checkbook for Iraq--no problem then. We did not hear speeches about the grandchildren and the great-grandchildren. Oh, no. All of a sudden, when the middle class is hurting, when the working poor are hurting, when people are losing their homes--not the richest of the rich; they are fine; they do not have mortgages--average families, suddenly my friends on the other side come out with their charts: Oh, my goodness, a trillion dollars of spending. Well, we had a Presidential election about this issue, and I think it is safe to say the reason the results were as they were is because of this economy. I do not think there is any pundit or even anyone in the Senate who would argue otherwise. Remember the turning point, when the Republicans said: The fundamentals of our economy are strong? Well, maybe they still feel that way. Why don't they come out and say that? They do not want to say that because it is so obviously ridiculous when we are losing 500,000 jobs a month. We have lost more jobs in the last 2 months than there are people who live in the State of Delaware. This is where we are. So instead of working together, our friends on the other side come out, one after the other, with the same talking points: The Democrats are irresponsible. Well, I ask: Who is irresponsible? People who want to work to ease the pain of what is happening in our country or people who brought us to this point, giving tax cuts to the millionaires and the billionaires, and a war we never should have fought, and now they find their fiscal soul. I am so disappointed. We have a President who has reached out to the other side, and all we get are speeches from talking points about why we shouldn't act now. I will tell my colleagues, if this gets away from us, if we can't get the votes we need--we just need a couple of our friends on the other side of the aisle--then this is going to be the party of Herbert Hoover over there all over again, and people will come out in the streets, as they did during the Great Depression and said things about Herbert Hoover that I can't repeat on this floor. People are hurting. They are two paychecks away from losing their homes. In some communities in my State, one in four homes is underwater and is being foreclosed. Now, is this bill perfect? Absolutely not. There are things in this bill I would vote to take out; there are a handful of things, a small percentage I would vote to take out. So if you want to work with us on that, fine. But to come down to this floor and suggest that we are rushing through an emergency bill and that is wrong--it seems to me to be coming from a list of talking points that don't mesh with reality. So I hope we can change the tone of this debate. The American people spoke out in November, and my friends on the other side are becoming the party of no: No, we can't do anything. No. And what do they come up with? Tax cuts for the wealthy again. That is what got us in this fiscal mess in the first place. We want to give tax cuts, as we do in this bill, to the middle class, to the working poor. At this point, I would just say to my friends, look into your heart, look into your soul, and look at reality. I wish to say to my friend Senator Mikulski that I am proud to support her amendment. I yield the floor.

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

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk, amendment No. 112, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read.

Mrs. BOXER. I am happy to, yes.

Mrs. BOXER. Reserving the right to object, I don't understand what we are doing.

Mrs. BOXER. I would agree to that, happily, if we can have 1 minute prior to the vote to restate.

Mrs. BOXER. I yield to Senator Ensign for as much time as he may consume.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, can you tell me how much time remains on each side?

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, if you could tell me when I use 5 minutes, please.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, people stand and argue against this amendment, and they say things that are not factual. They have every right to say it. I protect and defend their right to say it, but they are not factual. Now, Senator Kerry said there is no proof that any jobs were created. Well, Allen Sinai, Robert Schapiro, and Laura Tyson have all said jobs were created and jobs will be created. Senator Kerry said, in his forceful argument against this amendment, that companies simply didn't do anything, and now if they do R&D it will simply replace what R&D they were going to do. We don't allow this to happen. It has to be new spending, maintenance of effort must continue. I want to call to my colleagues' attention to the report that was issued by Robert Schapiro, Under Secretary of Commerce under Bill Clinton, in which he points out that 1.6 million jobs were in fact created or retained, just in manufacturing; 102,000 jobs in wholesale and retail; in transportation he goes on and shows all the different jobs that were created for a total of 2.1 million jobs. Now, does that mean every company added jobs? No, some didn't, but it has nothing to do with this. So the fact is, when my colleagues stand up and say, why are we doing this when it was such an utter failure, well, take your argument to Laura Tyson, take your argument to Allen Sinai, take your argument to Robert Schapiro and show them where they are wrong. Then we are told Joint Tax has to be paid attention to. They were dead wrong the last time. I mean, they said maybe we would have $100 billion come in, maybe up to $200 billion. Well, $360 billion came in. They were way off on the revenues. The revenues they said would come in--it was $16 billion that came into Treasury. They said it would cost $3 billion. So they were wrong. So how can we stand here and try to defeat this measure? Now, my friend from Massachusetts says this isn't the time or the place or the bill and so forth. This is a moment we can respond to this recession. We are going to do it in many other ways, and I will be supporting things and opposing things, but let me just read to you from Robert Schapiro's report--remember, a Bill Clinton Commerce Under Secretary. As President Obama and Congress expand the catalogue of measures to help stabilize the financial system and address the economic decline, a major untapped resource sits on the balance sheets of the foreign subsidiaries of U.S. multinational corporations. These subsidiaries hold up to $1 trillion in past earnings because current U.S. law defers U.S. corporate tax on those profits until they repatriate. If those earnings were transferred to the parent companies in the United States, they could find substantial new capital investment and employment and provide additional liquidity to the strapped U.S. financial system as companies reduce their domestic debt. In principal, the earnings currently held abroad would provide significant economic stimulus and financial market liquidity if a change in government policy could induce U.S. multinationals to promptly repatriate them and use them for designated purposes. So my friends stand here and make an argument about how horrible it is that these companies have money abroad, and I agree. I am upset about it. I was upset in 1997 about it. I was upset in 1998 about it. I was upset in 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003. Finally, in 2004, Senator Ensign and I got together and we said: Let's see if we can get that money home. So for my colleagues who are lamenting the fact that this money is abroad, we say: Join with us; bring it home. If you are saying the effective rate is 17 percent, if we can bring it in at 5.25 percent, that is less of a loss to the Treasury.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time to my colleague, Senator Ensign.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I move to waive the relevant section and ask for the yeas and nays.