Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, the Hatch amendment would codify the divisive Bush regulation that only covers the unborn child but not the mother. In other words, they separate the two. What we do in the underlying bill is we cover both. We cover the pregnant woman and the child she is carrying. There is no reason to have this amendment. Look at page 50 of the bill. It clearly states that prenatal care will be delivered to that pregnant woman. This is about adding abortion to this debate. It doesn't belong in this debate. It is not necessary. We have already voted this down twice. I trust we will vote it down now. I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

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

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 86

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am pleased that today the Senate voted to reauthorize and expand the Children's Health Insurance Program, which will extend health care to millions of children across the Nation. Right now, our Nation faces one of the gravest economic crises in our history, and more and more Americans are having difficulty making ends meet--especially when it comes to the rising costs of health care. All too often it is children who pay the price. For almost 12 years, the Children's Health Insurance Program has provided health care for millions of children from working families that do not qualify for Medicaid but cannot afford private insurance. These are the children of working families. Millions of Americans have found that as the cost of health insurance rises an increasing number of employers are unable or unwilling to provide health insurance to their employees and their families. Approximately 45 million Americans, including nearly nine million children, are living without health insurance, and the number of families who do not have health insurance has continued to rise. Currently, the Children's Health Insurance Program provides coverage for 6.7 million children nationwide. This reauthorization provides health care coverage for an additional 4.1 million children who are uninsured today. This bill is largely based on legislation that was twice vetoed by President Bush. This legislation includes several improvements to the Children's Health Insurance Program that would fund outreach and enrollment efforts, allow States to use information from food stamp programs and other initiatives for low-income families to find and enroll eligible children, and give States the option to cover pregnant women for prenatal care vital to healthy newborn children. I also support a provision in this bill that gives States the option to cover legal immigrant children and pregnant women under Medicaid and CHIP with no waiting period. Under current law, lawfully present pregnant women and children who entered the country after August 22, 1996 are barred from Medicaid and CHIP for the first 5 years they are in the country. These restrictions have severely undermined the health status of immigrant families across the Nation. My home State of California has a higher cost of living than most others, a lower rate of employer sponsored coverage, and a higher rate of the uninsured. In California, CHIP funds cover approximately 1.4 million children and pregnant women. Currently, there are approximately 1.2 million children in California who do not have health insurance, and about 694,000 of these children are eligible for CHIP coverage. This legislation not only extends this essential program, but gives States like California the flexibility they need to design a program that best fits the needs of their children. I would like to thank Senators Baucus and Rockefeller and the other members of the Finance Committee who worked so tirelessly to keep the focus of this bill where it should be--on the children. There is not a man or woman in this chamber who wouldn't do everything within their power to ensure the health of their own children--we should do no less for the children of our Nation.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Community Choice In Real Estate Act of 2009. I am pleased to have Senator Burr join me in introducing this bill. In previous Congresses, this bill was introduced by former Senators Allard and Clinton, and I am happy to continue their efforts. The Community Choice in Real Estate Act of 2003 would clarify Congressional intent that real estate brokerage and management are not financial activities and would therefore retain the separation of commerce and banking that was intended during consideration of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act got many things wrong when it repealed the firewall between the activities of banks and those of the stock market, bonds and insurance and allowed these institutions to engage in riskier activities. But one thing that it did get right was maintaining the firewalls separating the financial and commercial sectors. We already have seen the damage to our economy and real estate market caused when banks began to engage in certain previously prohibited activities. If the firewall separating banking and commerce also were to be torn down, it would further undermine banks' ability to be neutral arbiters of capital and lend based on financial principles and without bias. The S&L crisis of the 1980's has already shown us what can happen when federal rules keeping financial services separate from commercial activities are weakened. Real estate brokerage and management have always been considered by Congress to be commercial transactions, and not financial matters. This was further reflected when Congress specifically chose not to include real estate activities as one of the powers given to national banks and financial holding companies as part of Gramm-Leach-Bliley. However, following the passage of that Act, the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department proposed rules in response to a petition by some financial services entities that would have allowed them to own and operate local real estate brokerage and property management companies. Since fiscal year 2003, Congress has included language in the annual appropriations bill for the Treasury Department to prevent the use of funds to implement these regulations. These have only been temporary fixes, however, and we ought to resolve this issue once and for all in the 111th Congress. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Community Choice In Real Estate Act of 2009. I am pleased to have Senator Burr join me in introducing this bill. In previous Congresses, this bill was introduced by former Senators Allard and Clinton, and I am happy to continue their efforts. The Community Choice in Real Estate Act of 2003 would clarify Congressional intent that real estate brokerage and management are not financial activities and would therefore retain the separation of commerce and banking that was intended during consideration of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act got many things wrong when it repealed the firewall between the activities of banks and those of the stock market, bonds and insurance and allowed these institutions to engage in riskier activities. But one thing that it did get right was maintaining the firewalls separating the financial and commercial sectors. We already have seen the damage to our economy and real estate market caused when banks began to engage in certain previously prohibited activities. If the firewall separating banking and commerce also were to be torn down, it would further undermine banks' ability to be neutral arbiters of capital and lend based on financial principles and without bias. The S&L crisis of the 1980's has already shown us what can happen when federal rules keeping financial services separate from commercial activities are weakened. Real estate brokerage and management have always been considered by Congress to be commercial transactions, and not financial matters. This was further reflected when Congress specifically chose not to include real estate activities as one of the powers given to national banks and financial holding companies as part of Gramm-Leach-Bliley. However, following the passage of that Act, the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department proposed rules in response to a petition by some financial services entities that would have allowed them to own and operate local real estate brokerage and property management companies. Since fiscal year 2003, Congress has included language in the annual appropriations bill for the Treasury Department to prevent the use of funds to implement these regulations. These have only been temporary fixes, however, and we ought to resolve this issue once and for all in the 111th Congress. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, is Senator Brownback next?

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I say to Senators, if you want to save the lives of women around the world and you want to cut down on abortions, vote against the Martinez-Brownback amendment. I say to my friend who is asking for bipartisanship, this vote will be bipartisan. We will have more than 60 people in this Senate, I believe, who will vote against this amendment and affirm the action of our new President, President Barack Obama, who very wisely understands that with a stroke of a pen, undoing what the Bush-Cheney administration did will indeed save the lives of women. I could talk quite a bit about generalities and the thousands of women who are waiting to have reproductive health care who cannot get it because of this Mexico City gag rule which says to nongovernmental organizations who work overseas: You cannot get U.S. funding if you even speak about the possibility that abortion is an option; all of your funds will be cut off. So many of these groups gave up the funds so as not to be gagged. If this was done in this country, it would be unconstitutional on its face because what the gag rule says to international nongovernmental organizations is: If you do not do what the Bush administration wants, you cannot use your own money to provide health care which could include, for example, counseling when there is an unintended pregnancy. Let me tell you the story of a 13-year-old girl named Min Min because I think it is important to put a face on this issue. She is from Nepal. She was raped by a male relative. A relative helped her get an abortion, and Min Min was sentenced to 20 years in jail while the male relative walked. In Nepal at that time, abortion was illegal, even in the cases of rape or incest. Because of the gag rule, organizations in Nepal that wanted to help girls like Min Min and change the laws and get children out of jail were told: You will lose all your U.S. funding if you even talk about it. So you know what one particular organization did? They gave up the money and they struggled, and then they did not have funding for family planning or for reproductive health care. That is the kind of cruel policy that is called the Mexico City gag rule. That is the kind of cruel policy that my colleagues, Senator Martinez and Senator Brownback, want to put back into place. And they do it in the name of life? How is that being done in the name of life when you put a 13-year-old child in prison because she was raped, the relative who did this to her walks, and an organization that is seeking justice is shut out of U.S. support? That is not life-affirming. I applaud our President for doing this. Again, a lot of these issues are difficult. This was a stroke of a pen. This is a reflection of a bipartisan majority in this country who thinks that it is cruel and wrong to tell these organizations they have to dance to the tune of politics, the politics of America, before they get any funding from us to prevent abortion, to promote family planning, to help a little child such as Min Min get out of jail. I am proud today to stand in front of you, Mr. President, and say that with President Obama, this is just the start of the changes he will bring that will help women, that will help families, that will help children. I hope we will defeat this amendment with an overwhelming vote, and I predict we will. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield for a moment?

Mrs. BOXER. Well, first, I thank the Senator so much for adding those numbers. We are talking about saving women's lives and we are talking about stopping thousands of abortions. That is why it is so inexplicable to me that this amendment is coming from the other side. I wanted to ask a couple of questions of my friend. Senator Brownback asked for us to find common ground, and I want to find common ground, and I said we are going to find common ground with this vote. But further, wouldn't my friend agree that family planning is the common ground between those of us who support a woman's right to choose and those who oppose it? Isn't family planning finding common ground?

Mrs. BOXER. I have one last question to ask through the Chair.

Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent for 1 more minute, and to give Senator McCain an extra minute if he wishes.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I also wanted to make the point that this denial of funds to these nongovernmental organizations--which the Senator is absolutely right to stress--is far-reaching. Even if they tell a woman what her options are, and as long as they know these options are legal, it should be fine and they shouldn't be punished. But does my friend know, because I wasn't clear until recently, that this punishment of this gag rule goes beyond this? In the case of Nepal, where a nongovernmental group wanted to simply change the law so that abortion could be legal if a child was raped, they were denied the funds because they wanted to go in front of their government and say, sir and madam, let us have compassion for those like this 13-year-old child. She is in jail for 20 years; she was raped. So is my friend aware that is how far this global gag rule went?

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I want to have an up-or-down vote on this amendment. I am not going to make a motion to table. I think this is a very bad amendment, an amendment that would consign women all over the world to desperate situations because what Senator Martinez wants to do is restore the gag rule. That means that nongovernmental organizations overseas who help women get reproductive health care and tell them what their legal options are and make birth control available to them so they can plan their families will lose every dollar of American support if they even try to do those things. President Obama, like President Clinton, did the right thing. With the stroke of a pen, he stood for the lives of women and for family planning and for the health of women all over the world. We have statistics that are very clear. Senator Durbin read them. Tens of thousands of abortions will be avoided because of the actions of our new President. For the life of me, I do not understand how someone who is against abortion could offer such an amendment which in essence will consign women to back-alley abortions and death. If you really want to vote to promote life and health, vote against the Martinez amendment and stand with President Obama on what I know will be an overwhelming majority of Senators from both sides of the aisle in favor of doing away with this global gag rule. If it were tried in America, it would be unconstitutional. Stand for freedom. Stand for women. Let's definitely vote this down. I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Mrs. BOXER. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. The Senator from California, not Texas.

Mrs. BOXER. You got it.

Mrs. BOXER. Thank you so much, I say to Senator Mikulski. The bill Senator Mikulski is urging us to vote for simply restores the law to what it was in almost every State in the country before the Supreme Court dealt us a very serious blow and said, in fact, you had to move from the minute the discrimination started. Well, what if you had no clue you were being discriminated against, just like Lilly Ledbetter, who did not know until an anonymous note appeared from a male colleague, and he told her: The men who are doing the same work as you are getting paid far more. Well, she did not know that for years and years and years. Although the lower courts acted in the right fashion, the Supreme Court, in the tightest of decisions, destroyed what I consider to be the ability to recover damages when you have been blatantly and unabashedly discriminated against simply because you are a woman. Now, I urge my colleagues to defeat these pernicious amendments that are coming. As to the one from my friend, Senator Hutchison, believe me, it is a wolf in sheep's clothing. If we adopt the Hutchison amendment, people such as Lilly Ledbetter simply would not be helped. The Hutchison amendment essentially adopts the flawed decision by the Supreme Court in the Ledbetter case. It creates a confusing new standard for employees. Let's not take my word for it or Senator Mikulski's word for it. Let's take the words of the National Women's Law Center. Their whole life has been spent fighting for women's rights. What do they say? They say: Under the Hutchison amendment--and I am quoting--``employees are left without any remedy against present, continuing pay discrimination if they do not file a complaint within 180 days of the first day when they `have or should have expected to have' enough information to suspect discrimination.'' Well, take Lilly Ledbetter. If you never met her, she is the most hard-working, direct individual I have ever met. She worked so hard for Goodyear Tire. She had no clue, no time to think about whether she was getting equal pay. She got up in the morning, she got dressed for work, and she worked hard, never suspecting her work would not be rewarded in an equal fashion to her male counterparts. Under the Hutchison amendment, she is left out in the cold, and all those other women who have no clue. Sometimes discrimination is carried out in a way that you have no way of knowing that it is happening. Now, in the Senate, we have open books. Everybody can see what I make, what my staff makes. It is clear. If there is any discrimination going on, you can ferret it out, figure it out, and, by the way, you have a cause to seek recompense. We do not have a situation as they do in the private sector where it is a totally private situation. So it could be you could be working for years and years and years and never know. This bill on which Senator Mikulski is leading us is so important because it says every time you get a paycheck, that 180 days runs, so you have a chance to make up for this discrimination. So I say to my friends, you are going to see these amendments coming at you. Do not fall for them. Do not fall for them because they actually undermine, undercut, and destroy what we are trying to do for the women of America. I say to my friend, Senator Mikulski, how proud I am to stand with her. She feels this issue in her heart of hearts. She is a working woman. She comes from a working-class family. I have to say, I came from a family where my mother never even went to high school. She could not graduate because she was forced to go to the workplace to support her parents. The thought of my mother working so hard every day and having someone in the workplace say: Don't worry about that little lady over there, she has no power, no clout; we can pay her less than we pay a man--and I am sure that occurred because this was a long time ago-- the thought of my mother in the workplace being discriminated against and not having the opportunity to do anything about it really sets me off. I think about all the moms out there in the workplace and I think about the grandmas in the workplace. I think about single women in the workplace. They have a right to be protected. Vote no on Hutchison; vote no on Specter; vote yes on the underlying Mikulski bill. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. As we begin our work this Congress to address the greatest economic challenge our nation has faced in a generation, the solutions we consider must focus on strengthening the middle class. Last month the economy lost 524,000 jobs, and in 2008, 2.6 million jobs were lost--the most in one year since 1945. Unemployment continues to climb--in some areas of my State of California, the unemployment rate is over twelve percent. Wages for many in the middle class have actually decreased over the last 8 years. And 46 years after passage of the Equal Pay Act, workers throughout the nation still suffer pay discrimination based on gender, race, religion, national origin, disability and age. When it comes to achieving the principle of equal pay for equal work, we still have a long way to go. Women workers today earn only 78 cents for every dollar men earn. The pay disparity is still so great that it takes a woman 16 months to earn what a man earns in 12 months. In 2006, an average college-educated woman working full time earned $15,000 less than a college-educated male. According to the American Association of University Women, working families lose $200 billion in income per year due to the wage gap between men and women. To put it simply, pay discrimination is hurting our middle class families and hurting our economy. Unfortunately there is no easy solution that will eliminate all pay discrimination. But what this bill will do is ensure that when an employer discriminates based on gender or race or other factors, the employee can have his or her day in court. With its 2007 Ledbetter v. Goodyear decision, the Supreme Court reversed decades of legal precedent in the courts of appeals and long- standing Equal Employment Opportunity Commission policies, and effectively undercut a commonsense, fundamental protection against pay discrimination. With its decision, the Court imposed significant obstacles for workers by requiring them to file a pay discrimination claim within 180 days of when their employer FIRST starts discriminating--an almost impossible standard. This bill simply restores the law to what it was prior to the Court's decision in a workable and fair way that will protect people like Lilly Ledbetter from discrimination. Mr. President, the story of Lilly Ledbetter makes it clear why this legislation is necessary. The discrimination she suffered is not unfamiliar to many female and minority employees in manufacturing plants and office parks across the country. Ms. Ledbetter was a female manager at an Alabama Goodyear Tire plant when she discovered after 19 years of service that she was earning 20 to 40 percent less than her male counterparts for doing the exact same job. As Justice Ginsburg noted in her dissenting opinion, ``the pay discrepancy between Ledbetter and her 15 male counterparts was stark.'' In 1997, her last year of employment at Goodyear, after 19 years of service, Ms. Ledbetter earned $5,608 less than her lowest-paid male coworker. She earned over $18,000 less than her highest-paid male coworker. Evidence submitted in her trial showed that Ms. Ledbetter was denied raises despite receiving performance awards, her supervisors were biased against female employees, and that in some cases, female supervisors at the plant were paid less than the male employees they supervised. When Ms. Ledbetter discovered this, she took Goodyear to court and a jury awarded her full damages. But Goodyear appealed the jury's decision, and in 2007, the Supreme Court overturned the verdict and said that Ms. Ledbetter could not sue for back pay despite overwhelming evidence that her employer had intentionally discriminated against her because of her gender. The Supreme Court threw out the case because it took her longer than six months to determine that she had been the victim of years of pay discrimination. This is an unfair standard. In most situations, if an employee suspects pay discrimination, it takes significant time to determine the facts. As Justice Ginsburg pointed out, ``compensation disparities are often hidden from sight for a number of reasons.'' Ginsburg's point underscores the unreasonableness of the standard created by the Supreme Court. Many employers do not publish employee salaries and employees are often not eager to discuss their wages with other employees. Earlier this month the New York Times reported that ``in the last 19 months, Federal judges have cited the Ledbetter decision in more than 300 cases . . .'' This decision has had significant impacts on the employees alleging pay discrimination, severely limiting their rights to equal pay. Some courts are also using the decision to limit rights in other areas of the law, like equal housing, equal education, and civil rights cases. The Ledbetter decision was a giant step backward in the fight for equal opportunities and equal rights. Goodyear engaged in chronic discrimination against female employees, but because of this decision, the courts must treat intentional, ongoing pay discrimination as lawful conduct. Employers who can conceal their pay discrimination for 180 days are free to continue to discriminate with no redress for the employee. We must ask ourselves: Is this a standard that Congress should support? This bill simply restores the law to what it was in almost every state in the country before the Ledbetter case was decided. That law basically said you had 180 days to seek justice on equal pay for equal work each time that you were discriminated against. It does so by eliminating the unreasonable barrier created by the Supreme Court and allows workers to file a pay discrimination claim within 180 days of each discriminatory paycheck. For the Nation's working families and middle class to succeed and grow, the principle of equal pay for equal work must have teeth, it must have meaning, and this bill restores meaning to the equal pay principle. Justice Ginsburg told us, ``Congress, the ball is in your court.'' The time is now to restore decades of legal precedent and prevent the narrow Ledbetter decision from impacting more Americans facing discrimination. We must restore this important protection and return the law to its intended meaning. I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill.

Mrs. BOXER

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

Mrs. BOXER. The Presiding Officer and I have discussed this issue that is on the floor before us now, the next tranche of funds for the TARP program. All one has to do is listen to what TARP stands for: Toxic Assets--T-A--and your first instinct is: I don't want to go near it; I don't want to touch it; I don't want to have anything to do with it. I can tell my colleagues from the bottom of my heart that on 99 percent of issues here, I know what I am going to do pretty much immediately, because it is a clear path for me. I find it not that difficult to make that decision. However, the first vote we had on TARP after a phone call with Secretary Paulson and Ben Bernanke where they said: Our system is on the verge of economic collapse and if we don't get them the 700-plus billion dollars, our Nation would face economic ruin--I remember I was on that phone call with about 30 other Senators, and we were asked for a blank check by Henry Paulson. He wanted 700- plus billion dollars, he wanted it then, that minute, that second. He wanted no strings. He didn't want to tell the bankers they couldn't take a bonus payment. He didn't want to tell them executive pay had to be reasonable. He didn't want to tell them they would have to lend. He didn't want to use it for housing. It was a horrible conversation. We said: You are not getting a blank check and we are not going to do this until we put some strings on this. Well, we put a few strings on it. We set up a commission to oversee it. I wish to say that Mr. Paulson, in my view, did not live up to the spirit of what this Senate and this Congress wanted him to live up to. What they did was not transparent. What they did did not ease the credit crisis. What they did was to kind of ignore the problem of the housing crisis which got us into this mess in the first place. So let me be clear. Let me be clear to my constituents. If Henry Paulson was going to get this money, this second tranche of money, if the Bush administration was going to continue to dole out this money, I wouldn't give them $3, let alone $350 billion. I wouldn't give them 30 cents. I wouldn't give them 3 cents. However, I have to say to all of those within the sound of my voice, as someone who wound up voting for the first tranche and feeling badly about it ever since: When President-elect Obama tells us that it would be irresponsible for him, in the face of this worst crisis since the Great Depression, to not have the ability to tap into these funds; when he tells us that he is fearful that there could be a great crisis, that there could be an emergency; when he asks us to trust him on this and put our confidence in him and that he is going to use these funds in a different way, he is going to use these funds to address the housing crisis, and that he is going to be transparent; and to quote him, ``Every penny that they spend, the public will know about,'' I have a choice. I have a choice. I can say: Sorry, it was a horrible experience the first time and I am not going to give you this chance. I could say that. That is the easy thing. That is the easy vote. Voting no is the easy vote. Then I can go home and not worry about it. But how could I walk away from this President at this time? When he says to me and he says to us he needs a chance here, he needs this tool in his pocket to bring it out if he is in a crisis worse than the one now, I cannot walk away from that. So I say to my constituents I will vote for this, and I will do it because of the assurances I have gotten from the President-elect himself that it will be different, that he will use these funds judiciously, that he needs to make sure he has this tool in his pocket. I hope my constituents understand that after hearing that from this President, who got more than 60 percent of the vote in my State, that I feel he deserves my trust at this time. I thank the Chair and I thank Senator Dodd. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I wish to send my congratulations to the San Diego Chargers for the remarkable way that they turned around their 2008 season in the National Football League. During difficult economic times, as they face hardships and uncertainty, millions of sports fans across America turn to their hometown teams for solace and inspiration. Few teams this year faced as many hardships as the Chargers, and few teams in any year have overcome adversity with such inspiring tenacity. Hampered by injuries to star running back LaDainian Tomlinson and other key players and suffering through a series of heartbreaking losses, the Chargers began the 2008 season with just four wins in their first 12 games. With 3 weeks to go in the regular season, they trailed the division-leading Denver Broncos by three games. Though their fans remained loyal and the team remained confident, few outside observers gave them any chance reaching the NFL playoffs. Over the next 5 weeks, though, the Chargers made an amazing run. Beginning on December 4th, three consecutive San Diego victories and two Denver losses left the Chargers just one game back entering a December 28 showdown with the Broncos. In the decisive game, the Chargers staged an awe-inspiring offensive display to crush the Broncos 52-21 and win the AFC Western Division championship. They became the first team in NFL history to have been 4- 8 and make the playoffs and the first team ever to win their division after being three games behind the leaders with three games to play. Six days later, on January 3, the Chargers faced a terrific Indianapolis Colts team in the playoffs. In perhaps the greatest NFL game ever played in San Diego, the Chargers beat the Colts in overtime, 23-17. Every playoff tournament ends sadly for every team but one. Last Sunday, on a snowy day in Pittsburgh, the mighty Steelers ended the Chargers season. But nothing can dim the luster of the Chargers' late-season run. Their dramatic turnaround is an inspiration to sports fans everywhere. Mr. President, I grew up in Brooklyn, in the shadow of Ebbets Field, where baseball fans endured years of frustration with the annual cry of ``Wait Till Next Year.'' When I was in high school, our dream finally came true, and ``next year'' became this year. With a talented young team that has triumphed over adversity, the San Diego Chargers can look forward to next year with pride and confidence. I salute the Charger players, coaches, staff, and ownership along with their loyal fans--for a great 2008 season.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I rise to reintroduce the Early Education Act. Early education is critical to preparing children across our Nation with the initial skills and abilities to successfully begin their education. While the amount of support for early education has been increasing, great discrepancies remain between the quality of programs and the level of access from State to State. This bill is a step forward in making a national commitment to giving all children access to high quality pre-kindergarten programs that have been proven to have a solid impact on a child's success later in school and in life. Of the more than 8 million 3- and 4-year-olds that could be in early education, just over half are enrolled in an early education program. In my State of California alone, just fewer than 60 percent of 3- and 4-year-olds are in some kind of preschool. The result is that too many children enter elementary school unprepared to learn. Studies have shown that children who participate in pre-kindergarten programs are less likely to be held back a grade, show greater learning retention and initiative, have better social skills, are more enthusiastic about school, and are more likely to have good attendance records. Almost all experts now agree that an early education experience is one of the most effective strategies for improving later school performance. The National Research Council reported that pre- kindergarten educational opportunities are critical in developing early language and literacy skills and preventing reading difficulties in young children. The future of our Nation's economy depends on the next generation of workers, and high-quality early childhood education is key to preparing them for their careers. In the long run, pre-kindergarten programs pay for themselves. Decades of research have proven that early education programs yield between $7 to $16 for every dollar invested. My bill, the Early Education Act, would create a program in at least 10 States to provide 1 year of pre-kindergarten early education in public schools. The bill would require a dollar for dollar match by the States and would authorize no less than $300 million annually for these programs. These funds would be used by States to supplement--not supplant--other Federal, State or local funds. This bill would serve almost 150,000 children across the country. Our children need a solid foundation that builds on our current education system by providing them with early learning skills. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Health Insurance Tax Relief Act to help our Nation's workers and working families deal with dramatic increases in health care costs. The legislation would allow taxpayers to deduct their health insurance premiums up to $2,000 for individuals and $4,000 for families. While this deduction will certainly not solve all of the problems in our health care system, it will provide help for working individuals and families who have seen health care premium costs drastically rise. Since 1999, the average health insurance premium for workers covering their families has more than doubled. A recent survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that 40 percent of employers that offer health benefits are likely to increase the amount their employees pay in premiums. This is an issue of fairness. Current law provides a patchwork of tax deductions for health care costs depending upon an individual's employer, the type of health care plan provided by their employer, and/ or percentage of income spent on health care, among other things. Unfortunately this patchwork has left out many employees who face increasing premiums or are buying high cost health plans on their own. This legislation rectifies that unfairness and will help people meet rising health care costs. It would help those currently purchasing coverage to continue to do so, as well as helping people who are uninsured to purchase coverage. This legislation is particularly important for employees in small businesses. Many small businesses across the country have been forced by the rising cost of health care to shift an increasing amount of health insurance costs to their employees. These are hard working Americans struggling to make ends meet in a weak economy. Now more than ever we need legislation that provides targeted assistance to help families pay for health care. I urge my colleagues to support my legislation.