Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, the Bush administration has announced a plan that includes the use of National Guard forces to temporarily support Federal border patrol operations. While I support additional efforts to secure our borders, it is disappointing that nearly 5 years after the attacks of September 11, 2001, there are still insufficient U.S. Border Patrol personnel to adequately maintain the southern land border. I appreciate the efforts by the Senator from Nevada to clarify the role of the National Guard in implementing the President's plan to secure the border. It is my understanding that the National Guard is being utilized under title 32 of the United States Code, which means that command and control rains with the Governor and the State or territorial government even though the Guard forces are being employed in the service of the United States for a Federal purpose. I also understand that under title 32, the Federal Government will reimburse States for costs, including the logistical costs, incurred during the mission. Finally, I understand that the National Guard will not directly participate in any law enforcement function, including search, seizure, arrest or similar activity. Does the Senator from Massachusetts share my understanding that the Ensign amendment is consistent with the President's plan?

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, Senator Inhofe and I have spoken about this amendment. As I said to him when he first decided to offer it, is there any question in anybody's mind that in America we speak English, that that is the language of the country? If you ask any person in this country, they will say English. If you ask any foreigner, they will say English. So the question is: Why do we have to say that English is the language that we speak in America? Are we that insecure about ourselves? Of course, it is. We are a nation of many who proudly keep their own culture. But, of course, English is our language. If we have to say that it is your language, fine with me. Fine, I have no problem with it. In other words, if there are those who believe we have to now tell people what they already know, fine. But I want to do it in a way that unites us, not in a way that sets up some unintended consequences. Even though my friend from Oklahoma would not agree that there are unintended consequences, I think there are. For example, he said he made five speeches on the floor of the Senate in Spanish. And he went and he translated them so they appeared in English. Did he go over and did he dub in the videotapes? Because the videotapes will show the speech in Spanish. Is he breaking the rule then by not going up and hiring someone to dub in his words? What if there is an outbreak of a pandemic and it is moving quickly and there is no Federal law saying that you have to let people know in a series of different languages to protect our people and we didn't have time? What if there is a terrorist attack, God forbid, and we are not even here, and we need to spread the word and there is no law, and we can't come in to pass a law. What is going to happen then? And as my friend from Vermont said: Are we going to have to take the State flags out from an exhibit in the basement because many of them have slogans in Latin? There are unintended consequences. I know my friend tried hard to get us all to unify, but I have to say, if that was what he wanted to do, Senator Salazar has put together an excellent amendment. English is the common and unifying language of the United States that helps provide unity for the people of the United States. That is a beautiful statement. It says that English is our common language. But he doesn't set up an issue in his amendment, which I have read very carefully, that can have the unintended consequence of coming back to bite us. His particular amendment unifies us. I thank the Senator for that very much, coming from a State that has great diversity, the great State of California. I thank him for his hard work. I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Massachusetts.

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

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object--I shall not--Senator Feinstein and I are in favor of the distinguished nominee of the Ninth Circuit. We ask to have an additional 5 minutes for debate so that the result would be 10 minutes on either side.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, this is a special day for all of us who are on the floor presently because this date has been coming, in my opinion, for far too long. We could have done this 4 years ago, but sometimes it takes a while for good things to happen. We will not look back, we will look ahead. I say to my colleague, Senator Feinstein, that we are very fortunate because we worked hard to set up a system for our district court nominees which is working beautifully. We don't have rancor in California over judges--we really don't. This nomination of Milan Smith is also an opportunity to bring everyone together around a fine man, someone who will be, I believe, a very fine judge. Why? Because Mr. Smith is highly respected by those who know him and know his work. I am confident he will discharge his responsibilities with dignity, integrity, and intelligence. After law school, Mr. Smith joined the firm of O'Melveny & Myers and later started his own law firm where he is the managing partner. His work in the private sector has given him a wealth of experience and has earned him respect from his peers. Mr. Smith's career goes beyond the private practice of law. He has dedicated a significant amount of time and energy to public service, as well. In 1984, then-Governor Deukmejian appointed Mr. Smith to the governing board of the Los Angeles Service Building Authority where he served as president until 1992. Since then, he has acted as the Authority's general counsel. He also was appointed as a member of the California Fair Employment and Housing Commission. He joined the Fair Employment and Housing Commission in 1988 and worked for the next 3 years to protect the rights of the disadvantaged. It says a lot about Milan Smith. This was something he wanted to do: protect the rights of others who are less fortunate than he. During that tenure, Mr. Smith worked with legislators to reverse a Supreme Court of California decision limiting the commission's power to reward and collect damages for victims of discrimination. Because of Mr. Smith's hard work, passion, and compassion, the California Legislature passed a bill restoring the commission's authority to award damages to victims of discrimination. When then-Governor Wilson vetoed the bill, Mr. Smith resigned in protest. We all know a lot of fine people, but it takes guts to stand up and say: I submit my resignation. That shows courage and independence of mind. Here is Milan Smith, standing up to a Governor of the same political party. That is hard to do. I am sure it was painful. I am sure it was terrible. But he did it. In his resignation letter, Mr. Smith said: Despite my generally conservative political views, I've come to know much more of the sexual harassment, bigotry and mean spiritedness abroad in the land. To continue to sit on the FEHC when we can do nothing to fairly compensate genuine victims of unlawful sexual harassment, for example, would be unconscionable to me. Again, those words are eloquent. They are courageous. They show the kind of leadership we need in a judge. We need someone who is fair, someone who truly understands the rights of all Americans, and certainly of all Californians. Mr. Smith gained my profound respect by refusing to sit quietly in the face of what he believed to be injustice. It gives me confidence that as judges sit around and discuss cases that have come before them, he will be motivated by a fierce sense of independence. He will not fear standing up and will be counted when the moment comes. I am absolutely thrilled about this nomination. The Ninth Circuit will benefit greatly with the addition of Milan Smith. I strongly support his nomination. I had written a letter in favor of this nominee 4, maybe more, 5 years ago. This is a wonderful day for me, personally. I know Senator Feinstein feels that way. My colleague feels that way, and I think most of our colleagues feel this way. It shows we can reach across party lines and come to a point where we can compromise. I am sure Mr. Smith isn't going to do everything I want or everything that Senator Frist wants, but this is a wonderful choice today. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, thank you very much. I thank my colleague, Senator Dorgan, for being such a leader on this particular part of the bill which I have found extremely troubling from day one. I note that the chairman of the Judiciary Committee said we better not take the guest worker program out because, oh, my goodness, if we do take it out, there will be more illegal immigration. Well, maybe I am wrong on this--I do not think I am--but isn't a basic part of this bill to strengthen the border, the protections at the border? And isn't that part of what we are trying to do so we can stop the flow of illegal immigration--and having done that, allow the 11 to 12 million who are already here, who have clean records, who are willing to step forward, who are willing pay a fine, the chance at earned legalization? And then there is another piece that deals with specific sectors of our economy, such as agriculture, where we know there are problems with the workforce. With respect to the agriculture industry, we set up a program called AgJOBS, which I credit Senator Feinstein for putting it in the bill. Senators Craig and Kennedy, in a bipartisan effort, have supported this for many years, along with myself and others. So we had, I thought, a very well balanced bill until we added a guest worker program. In other words, the bill strengthened the border in one section, created a pathway for the undocumented immigrants currently in the country, and then--addressed one area, agriculture, where we know we need these workers and set up a very carefully tailored program. The bill also made adjustments for highly skilled workers such as engineers, and fixed some of the visa programs. So I thought that was a fairly balanced bill. Then what happened is, another piece was added, which is this really open-ended guest worker program which, in my opinion, will result in a permanent underclass of workers coming into our country. What disturbs me is what the provision does to the American workforce. You hear: Oh, these are people who will do work that Americans won't do. Now, I would say that is a good argument when it comes to agriculture. But we have taken care of agriculture in the bill. We have the AgJOBS provision. And we have taken care of the 11 to 12 million undocumented workers currently in the U.S. and given them a path for continued employment. So now, on top of it, we are looking at a program for 325,000 guest workers, each and every year, with an escalator of up to 20 percent added on to that. And what do you create now? A huge underclass of workers who will take jobs away from Americans. Now, the American people are compassionate. They are understanding. I think most of them want us to do a comprehensive bill. Most of them do not like what is in the House bill, where if you lean over to help someone who may be having a heart attack on the ground in front of you and that person is undocumented, according to the House, you could go to jail. The American people do not like that. But the American people also know we have not raised the minimum wage in almost 10 long years--which, by the way, I think we ought to darn well do on this bill--and that if you create another, virtually open- ended guest worker program, you are going to hurt the American people at the end of the day. So you hear the colleagues on the other side saying: Oh, No. 1, if you don't have this additional guest worker program, then people will sneak across the border. No. We are strengthening the border. That is one of the underlying principles of the bill. So that is not accurate. Now they say: Oh, if you don't do this, we will have jobs that are not filled. Now, what kind of jobs would guest workers do? Remember, we have already taken care of agriculture, so these guest workers are not for agricultural jobs. There are also separate provisions for the most highly educated immigrants, the various visa programs. So what would the guest workers do? Here are some examples: construction, food preparation, manufacturing, and transportation jobs. Now, these are fields where the vast majority of jobs are held by U.S. citizens and by legal workers. So it is incorrect to claim that the guest worker program, which has been kind of added on to what I think is a good bill, is targeted at jobs Americans will not do. These jobs are good jobs in good industries. Now, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2004, there were 6.3 million workers employed in the U.S. construction sector, at an average wage of $18.21 an hour or $37,890 a year. Now, when I meet with my working people in California, they are fighting hard for these jobs. They want more of these jobs, not fewer of these jobs. The last thing they want is a guest worker program that is going to provide a big pool of workers who may make far less than this amount and take jobs away from my people. I support the underlying bill except for this provision. I think this guest worker provision throws the whole thing out of whack. For the bottom quarter of Americans, who are making an average wage of about $7 an hour, construction work is a dream job. They pray for those jobs. They stand in line hours for those jobs. But what are we doing if the Dorgan amendment does not succeed? We are going to take those jobs away because an employer is going to say: Gee, should I hire an $18-an-hour American worker or, let's see, a foreign worker in a guest worker program who I could pay less? You know what is going to happen. Now, I think the real reason for a guest worker program is not what we hear about, oh, well, otherwise there will be more people sneaking across the border, or we are short all these workers and we don't have workers for construction jobs, transportation jobs, food preparation jobs, manufacturing jobs, and the like; but it is really to set up, in my view, a permanent number of workers who are prepared to work at very cheap wages. That would be bad for the American workforce. If we take this guest worker program out of this bill, we will have, my colleagues, a far better bill, a bill that we can all feel good about, a bill that does, in fact, reach out and say to undocumented workers who have worked here 5 years, 10 years, 15 years, 3 years--and they have clean records and they have paid their taxes and they are willing to come forward and pay their fines, and the rest--we will have a good bill for them, we will have a good bill that strengthens the border, which I strongly support and have supported for years, we will have a balanced bill, that includes the AgJOBS piece. But if we do not take this out, we have a bill that I believe is going to hurt many American workers. So I think the real reason this was put in was to have cheap labor, a cheap labor workforce. Now, the median wage in Mexico is $1.83 an hour. The typical hourly wage in China is 33 cents. So I ask my colleagues, what does a minimum wage--even if it is not raised, and shame on us that it has not been raised in 9 long years, going on 10 years--what does a $5-an-hour wage look like? Heaven to those people. And we are going to sanction this fairly open-ended program that escalates up to 20 percent a year for what reason other than to provide a permanent cheap labor force? It is very worrisome to me. There are some businesses that are wonderful, exemplary. There are others that would rather not look at their business as a family but just want to get the cheapest labor they can possibly get. So I cannot support the undermining of U.S. working conditions, and I cannot support a guest worker program that will decrease wages for low-income Americans. For goodness' sake, I have stood on this floor 1 year--2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9--going on 10 years, fighting to increase the minimum wage. How could I possibly vote to keep in this bill a guest worker program when we have such an opportunity to strengthen this bill by stripping this out. It would leave us with a bill with tighter enforcement at the border, a humane, legal path for people who are living in the shadows-- it will make us safer to get them out of the shadows, that is for sure--an AgJOBS program that is tailored to agriculture in a way that makes sense, and all those visa programs that address high skilled jobs? All that makes sense. I commend the committee for giving us a chance craft such a bill. I would be proud to have as my legacy such a bill. But if we can remove this, what I call this guest worker add-on, if we can remove this, I think we will have a far stronger bill. I commend my friend, Senator Dorgan. He is--I wanted to say he is dogged, and he is. He is dogged on behalf of working people. And I think he got this just right. I am very glad he has offered us this chance to improve this bill by pulling out the guest worker program. With that, Mr. President, I yield back the floor.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from New Mexico. As anyone watching the debate saw, I was in support of what Senator Dorgan was trying to do which was to strip the guest worker program from this bill, a bill that has a lot of good to it. I do support strengthening the border, and I do support giving 11 or 12 million hard-working people who have paid their dues, who will come forward and learn English and who will pay the fines, who have a clean record, a path to legality. I strongly support that, and I strongly support the AgJOBS provision of this bill. But I predict that this guest worker program, which the Senate has now ratified, is going to come back to haunt people because, as Senator Bingaman has shown us, the way this bill is structured, the workers will grow exponentially in this guest worker program to the point where, according to some estimates, we are talking about tens of millions of guest workers over the next 20 years. What Senator Bingaman is trying to do is to put a cap on this, a real cap, not the phony cap that is in the bill that says it will escalate up to 20 percent every year. You figure out the math. It is kind of amazing. What Senator Bingaman is doing is making this a better bill. I strongly support the cap he is proposing. I thank him for the opportunity to speak on behalf of his amendment. As usual, he has brought commonsense to the Senate. I hope the Senate will strongly support the Bingaman amendment. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, thank you very much. Do I have a specific time associated with my remarks?

Mrs. BOXER. Could I make it 8 minutes?

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, when I look at the distribution chart showing who benefits from the bill before the Senate, my question is, whose side are we on, anyway? I hope the answer to that question is, the majority of the American people. When we look at this chart, what we find is we are on the side of not even 1 percent of the American people. We are on the side of those earning over $1 million a year. That is who gets the benefits of this bill. According to The Urban Institute-Brookings Tax Policy Center, we see that the average tax cut of those over $1 million is $41,977 a year in this bill. The benefit of this tax break is essentially more than what some middle class Americans earn all year. Then we have an additional number from the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. Their chart shows if you earn over $1.6 million, this Republican tax bill will get you back $82,000 each and every year. Well, what is someone who earns, say, $40,000 getting back? Forty-six dollars--not even enough in some cases to fill up a gas tank. Whose side is this Republican Senate on? If this were a time when we did not have deficits and we did not have debt, it would be one thing. I still would oppose this bill. I would rather give the benefits to those in the middle. I would rather give the benefits to those who were struggling with the high cost of gas. I would rather give the benefits to those who are struggling to send their children to college. By the way, in this particular bill, the college tuition tax deduction, so popular with middle-class families, was not included. The Republicans took it out in order to help the wealthiest Americans and, by the way, big oil. Big oil gets big tax breaks in this bill, $5 billion strong. Here we have a circumstance where the millionaires and the oil companies win and middle-class America and working-class America, 99 percent plus, lose. No wonder there is change in the air. People are saying, Enough is enough. Colleagues, we can say enough is enough today by voting down this ill-conceived, unfair bill that punishes most Americans, except for big oil and the very wealthiest few. Yes, there is a one-year fix to the alternative minimum tax in here. For that, I am grateful. Yet, still, that good fix is far outweighed when you look at the distribution tables. You can see who gets the benefits. Twenty dollars for regular working and middle-class American families is the average tax cut; $20 a year, while people making over $1.6 million get up to $82,000 a year. This is America. This country is great because we believe in our middle class. We know our working people are the engine of our economy and the pride of our Nation, yet we have a table that shows that the middle class is not only forgotten, they are made fools of in this bill. Yes, there is a fix to the AMT. Good. Outside of that, we have a situation where those who have, get more; those who have a lot, get even more; and the oil companies that have been manipulating supply and hurting the American people get a tremendous amount. That is how the tax break for big oil works. See if you can follow me. They set the rules governing oil company profits so that if an oil company buys a lot of oil at a low price, say, $40 a barrel, and then they sell that oil at $70 a barrel, they get to pretend that they bought the oil at $70 too. You would think the difference between $40 and $70 would be their profit and what they would owe taxes on. But under this bill, no, no, no. Their profits, and tax liabilities, are calculated on the price of oil on the day they sell the oil. So if they buy oil at $40 a barrel and sell it at $70, they do not pay any taxes on it because they are allowed to claim their costs are the same as their revenues--$70 a barrel. It is a giveaway to big oil, which is having the most unbelievable record profits, which we believe are manipulating supply, and which gives their CEOs a $400 million bonus package. This is what this Republican bill does. How they can even bring it to the Senate with a straight face is beyond me. But they have brought it to the Senate. I ask those moderate Republicans to join us and send a message that it is time to change. It is time to look at our middle-class families in California and all across this country and stand on their side--those struggling with the gas crisis, those struggling with health care, those struggling with college tuition. This is a day when we ask the question, Whose side are we on? I hope the answer is, we are not on the side of the winners in this chart. The winners are the wealthiest among us and the oil companies. Again, if this were a different time, if we did not have raging deficits, which we have had since this President took office, if we did not have a debt that is going so high that this Senate has to vote in the dead of night to raise the debt ceiling, if we were not in a terrible war that is killing our soldiers, with no end in sight and no plan in sight, that would be a different story, and we could say a rising tide lifts all boats, and we will give everyone a break. But those are not the times in which we live. At the end of the day, the gimmicks that are used to pay for the tax breaks are just so many gimmicks because we know by putting the wealthiest in the Roth IRAs, there is an initial flush of money coming in, but at the end of the day the earnings in the Roth accounts are not taxable and will cost us billions of dollars in lost revenues. This bill will drive up our debt and deficits. In closing, a recent NBC-Wall Street Journal poll asked Americans their top concerns. Do you think that Americans said, I want to give tax breaks to the oil companies? I want to give tax breaks to those earning $1.6 million a year? No, they said their top concerns were rising gas prices, Iran's nuclear ambitions, immigration, civil disorder in Iraq, the Bush administration leaking national security information, and Enron-style corruption. What do we give them today, the American people? We give them everything they do not want, rewarding big oil and rewarding those who have not asked to be helped. They are doing fine. The people earning over $1.6 million a year are doing just fine. We are giving the American people more deficits. We are giving them more debt. We are not helping middle-class families solve the problems of the raging costs of college tuition and the raging costs of gas prices. I hope we vote no on this bill. It is a bad bill.

Mrs. BOXER. Could the Senator repeat that?

Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Senator.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I rise to mark ``Juneteenth,'' the day in 1865 when General Gordon Granger issued his order proclaiming America's remaining slaves free. On June 19, 1865, MG Gordon Granger and a group of Union soldiers landed at Galveston, TX. With their landing, they announced that the war had ended and that the slaves were now free. This was more than 2 years after President Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, which had little impact in Texas. Though initially celebrated in Galveston, TX, Juneteenth is now observed nationwide. Americans from all racial and ethnic backgrounds celebrate Juneteenth. And while this day holds a special resonance for descendants of slaves, Juneteenth provides an important opportunity for us all to commemorate a central tenent of our great country: that we are all created equal. This Juneteenth let us all celebrate this milestone in the struggle for liberty by recommitting ourselves to the advancement of justice for all. The stain of slavery can never be erased from the history of our Nation, and should never be forgotten. In celebrating Juneteenth, we also honor those who suffered under slavery and help to further our understanding of our Nation's history. One of the most common elements of Juneteenth celebrations is the singing of ``Lift Every Voice and Sing,'' written by James Weldon Johnson. I am happy to provide these lyrics of this great American song: Lift Every Voice and Sing Lift every voice and sing Till earth and heaven ring, Ring with the harmonies of Liberty; Let our rejoicing rise High as the listening skies, Let it resound loud as the rolling sea. Sing a song full of the faith that the dark past has taught us, Sing a song full of the hope that the present has brought us, Facing the rising sun of our new day begun Let us march on till victory is won. Stony the road we trod, Bitter the chastening rod, Felt in the days when hope unborn had died; Yet with a steady beat, Have not our weary feet Come to the place for which our fathers sighed? We have come over a way that with tears have been watered, We have come, treading our path through the blood of the slaughtered, Out from the gloomy past, Till now we stand at last Where the white gleam of our bright star is cast. God of our weary years, God of our silent tears, Thou who has brought us thus far on the way; Thou who has by Thy might Led us into the light, Keep us forever in the path, we pray. Lest our feet stray from the places, Our God, where we met Thee; Lest, our hearts drunk with the wine of the world, we forget Thee; Shadowed beneath Thy hand, May we forever stand. True to our GOD, True to our native land. --James Weldon Johnson.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I rise to congratulate Dr. Philip Gold on receiving the Rabbi Norman F. Feldheym Award. The Rabbi Norman F. Feldheym Award was established to pay tribute to those members of Congregation Emanu El who have conspicuously and exceptionally reflected Rabbi Feldheym's qualities of love for and loyalty to the synagogue, service to the community, and the personal traits of humility, loving kindness, care, and love. Dr. Gold receives this award as part of the ceremonies marking the 115th anniversary of the founding of the congregation. Dr. Philip M. Gold has been an extraordinarily devoted leader of Congregation Emanu El through his service as a member of its board of directors since 1990. He served as secretary, second vice-president, vice-president, and, from 2000 until 2002, he served as the president of the congregation. During his remarkable tenure with Congregation Emanu El, Dr. Gold has masterfully guided it through a period of leadership change. He has been an inspirational leader of the congregation with a deep love for Judaism, participation in worship and education, and an exemplary commitment to Jewish values and their application to contemporary society. In addition to his immense contributions to Congregation Emanu El, Dr. Gold is a highly respected physician and teacher, and he has been recognized by his colleagues as a leader in the field of medicine. He has served as the president of various medical organizations, and he has received numerous awards for his work and achievements. As his family, colleagues, patients, and fellow congregants would attest, Dr. Philip M. Gold is a truly deserving recipient of an award that honors the importance of integrity, character, ethics, humility, and love for others. Throughout his life, Dr. Gold has consistently embodied the best ideals of human values. I congratulate Dr. Philip M. Gold on receiving the Rabbi Norman F. Feldheym Award and wish him continued success in his future endeavors.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, my understanding is that Senator Dorgan had time at 5 o'clock set aside, so if he wishes to take it now, then I will wait until his conclusion. I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of Senator Dorgan's remarks I be permitted to speak at that time. Since it is controlled by the Democrats, I can make that request by myself.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, before he leaves the floor, I say to my colleague from Iowa, Senator Harkin, how much I appreciate his leadership in the area of health care. His analysis of where we stand on the stem cell issue is so appropriate, and he is so right. Here we have a whole area of scientific research that is waiting to take off. We have States, such as mine and others, that are taking the lead instead of following the lead of the Federal Government. I say to my friend, does he ever remember a time in history when this country was plagued by disease that the Federal Government didn't step to the plate, whether there was a Republican President or a Democratic President? Isn't it shocking that as we face these epidemics of Alzheimer's and Parkinson's and cancer and heart disease and all the others my friend mentioned, isn't it amazing--I am sure it is to him as well as to me--that we have a lack of leadership in Washington?

Mrs. BOXER. As my friend pointed out in his statement, we have the votes for stem cell research, even with the President's opposition. If we asked for a show of hands in any roomful of people: Have you been touched by cancer, have you not personally or someone you know been touched by heart disease, by stroke, by Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, paralysis, all these things, we know how many hands would go up.

Mrs. BOXER. That is clearly one. And I have met with juvenile diabetics. I have met with the children, the parents and the families. They are counting on us. Here we are in Health Week, as my friend points out. We have the votes. Yet what do they bring up? A bill that is actually going to take away health care from people, the Enzi bill.

Mrs. BOXER. I am very proud of my State. In my State the gentleman who took the lead in putting the stem cell research initiative on the ballot has a child with juvenile diabetes. Watching that child suffer and struggle motivated him. He ignited this wonderful movement in our State. Shockingly, here we are in Health Week and this thing is nowhere to be seen. It is another example of why we need change around this place. I thank my friend. This Health Week Republican style is really fascinating when you look at the bills that have come before us. The first two bills would have hurt patients who were injured by malpractice, patients who might have been made infertile or harmed in many ways. Those two bills took away the rights of patients.

Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent to speak another 15 minutes.

Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent to suggest a quorum call.

Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent that at 5 o'clock I be given the floor for 10 minutes.

Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Chair.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I appreciate Senator Dorgan's remarks. I have been on the floor of the Senate a lot today waiting to get the time, and I have been fortunate to hear many colleagues. I thank him for very succinctly pointing out that in a real health care week you wouldn't close your eyes to hope--hope that we are going to find cures for the terrible diseases that plague our families--Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, diabetes, spinal cord injuries, stroke, heart attack, you just name them. The fact is, we know stem cell research is promising. We know a lot of States have gotten out ahead of the Federal Government because this President and this Congress have restricted the number of stem cell lines we can fund research on. And many of those stem cell lines are, frankly, no good at all because they have been impacted by mice cells. And they lack the diversity needed for robust research. I have talked to leaders in this field. I am not a scientist. I was educated in economics. But I have spoken to leading scientists, among whom is a gentleman named Dr. Peterson who worked at USFC in San Francisco. He is one of the leading pioneers in stem cell research who left to go to England because this President and this Congress put up a big stop sign in front of stem cell research. It is tragic. Our families need the hope of a cure. How many of us have met with these youngsters who have juvenile diabetes, and we have seen how difficult their lives are and how they suffer, even with the strides that have been made in this area. They are still in great danger. Health Week is here. We have a vehicle, as Senator Dorgan calls it, the Enzi bill, which tries to deal with the health insurance problems that small businesses face. I am going to talk about a better alternative to the Enzi bill that will really do something. But we also have a chance to raise these issues during the debate on the Enzi bill. We have bipartisan support for drug importation from countries such as Canada, where drugs are sold at half the price of what drug companies charge in the U.S. We have bipartisan support for stem cell research, fixing the Medicare prescription drug issue so we could actually say to Medicare: You have the ability and the right just as the VA has to negotiate with the pharmaceutical companies for lower prices. But I have to say Health Care Week Republican style is really Insurance Company Week. If you look at the bills that have been brought before us, they all help the insurance companies. They don't help average Americans. They do not help us. The first two bills said we are going to restrict the right of patients--whether they are very wealthy, whether they are middle income, whether they are poor--we are going to stop them from recovering damages if they are harmed by medical malpractice. I was very pleased that the Senate chose not to limit debate on those two bills which would have taken away the rights of patients while giving a gift to the insurance companies. And hopefully we can change the Enzi bill. I don't like bills that take away benefits from my people in California. I don't like bills that take away benefits from all Americans. That is why the Enzi bill is a bad bill. It does just that. I will go through with you the list of benefits that are taken away. Mr. President, the Republicans bring us Health Care Week. They bring us the Enzi bill. What they do not tell us and you don't find out until you look is that all the States' protections that have been put into place will be wiped out upon passage of the Enzi bill. Those are harsh words. What do I mean? What benefits will be taken away from my people in California? According to the report put together by Families U.S.A, ``The Enzi Bill, Bad Medicine for America,'' those benefits include AIDS vaccines, alcoholism treatment, blood lead screening. You know that is important because if you don't screen kids for lead in their blood they could have learning disabilities--bone density screening. We know about osteoporosis. In California we guarantee that your insurance will pay for that; no guarantee in the Enzi bill whatsoever. As a matter of fact, the Enzi bill overrides all of this--cervical cancer screening, clinical trials, colorectal screening, contraceptives, diabetic supplies and education. We just talked about how it is so important for diabetics to have their meds--drug abuse treatment, emergency services, home health care, hospice care, infertility treatment, mammography screening, maternity care, mental health parity. In my State, if you have a mental health problem and you need help, your insurance coverage will cover your treatment, just the same as if you had a physical problem. We know it works. The list goes on-- metabolic disorders, minimal mastectomy, off-label drug use. In California, we have a law that says you can't kick a woman out of a hospital the same day she has a mastectomy. What, you may say? This happens? It does--off-label drug use, orthotics, prosthetics, prostate cancer screening. We know that prostate cancer is a scourge-- reconstructive surgery, second medical surgery opinion. If somebody tells you you need serious surgery, you can get a second opinion in California. That is covered--special footwear, telemedicine, well child care, so that we prevent diseases. That is my State. Every single State in the Union gets overridden, whether it is Alabama, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho. I know my friend from Georgia would be interested because he is sitting in the Chair. These are the things that your State offers. It protects your consumers. It is as long a list as California, I am proud to say--alcoholism treatment, ambulatory surgery, bone density screening, bone marrow transplants are covered in the State of Georgia. Cervical cancer screening, contraceptives, dental anesthesia, diabetic supplies, drug abuse treatment, emergency services, heart transplants are covered in Georgia. Infertility treatment, mammography screening, mental health parity, minimal mastectomy stay, morbid obesity care-- which is very important now with the obesity epidemic--off-label drug use, ovarian cancer screening, telemedicine, and well child care. Georgia has a very inclusive and wonderful list of guaranteed protections for people. In the State of Georgia there are 2.347 million people affected by this who would not have those guarantees under the Enzi plan. The Enzi plan essentially says to insurance companies: You can choose. You have to offer one plan. What do they call that plan? One premium plan. You have to offer one premium plan based on a state plan of their choosing, but there is no guarantee at all that what is in that premium plan is what is in the Georgia plan or the California plan or the North Dakota plan. The fact is, all of the work that has been done in our States--and I find it somewhat amusing given this is a Republican debate, that the Republican bill preempts the States. What is wrong with this picture? I thought our Republican friends loved decisionmaking at the State level. No, not here in the Senate. They would prefer the insurance companies decide it rather than the States. This is why I call my colleagues' attention to a study done on the impact on all the States, with letters compiled from attorneys general from many of the States and Governors. From Oregon, they register their opposition, first their benefits are not guaranteed any longer. In addition, they are very worried about what happens to premiums. The Enzi bill disadvantages older people. As far as the research I have done, it disadvantages women. It certainly disadvantages people who come in with a preexisting condition such as high blood pressure. That includes a lot of Americans. The bottom line is, the Enzi bill, the star rollout production of the Republican Health Care Week, will make null and void all protections that our States have given their citizens and replace them with some kind of riverboat gamble where insurers will choose some plan, from some State, and apply it to my State. I don't want a so-called premium plan from another State. Here is a good example. In Connecticut, there is a terrible epidemic of Lyme disease. A tick bites your body and it can make a person very ill. We have some of that in California, but we do not have as much per capita as Connecticut. In Connecticut, the State legislature and the Governor say insurers have to cover Lyme disease because it is an epidemic in the State. In other States, it may not be necessary. However, we will wipe that Connecticut requirement off the books, and we will say, through the Enzi bill, insurance companies are going to decide. Something is wrong. This is not Health Care Week, this is ``insurance company week.'' That is not good for consumers. My own State has built a comprehensive State health insurance system that encourages affordable and equitable coverage for all, while ensuring consumers are protected and guaranteed benefits. The Enzi bill takes away a State's power to regulate health insurance. It is a gift to the insurers, as I said. It preempts benefits, as I said. It also is going to lead to way higher premiums for all in America who are covered by health insurance. Insurance companies, not the States, will now decide what benefits the consumers. That is why we have letter after letter after letter from Governors, from attorneys general, warning us not to pass the Enzi bill. There appears to be no limits on the cost shares an insurer can charge nor are there requirements that plans treat consumers equitably or offer comprehensive coverage. As I said, if you are a little older--maybe you have high blood pressure, maybe you have some other health problems--you are in trouble. You are not going to have an affordable plan and you will lose the benefits you have. You may be priced out of the market. It will be catastrophic. We have serious problems with the Enzi bill. Here is the great news. There is a wonderful alternative out there, the Durbin-Lincoln bill, of which I am a cosponsor. I thank my friends for working so hard on this. As I go around my State, people nod in agreement with the Durbin- Lincoln bill's premise. Senators have very good health insurance. We pay half of the premium and the Government matches the other half. There is a Federal Employee Health Benefits Program. There are basic benefits required and private companies come in and offer various plans. People such as me and my employees can choose from a broad array of plans. It works beautifully. I ask unanimous consent, at 5:45, the Senator from Oregon, Senator Murray, be recognized for 15 minutes, until 6 o'clock.