Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, as we stand here--or sit here--and watch what is happening, we know there are negotiations going on to avert at least part of the fiscal cliff. I want to say--I have said this privately, but I want to do it publicly--I hope our leaders can find a way out of this. I watched the President speak today and I thought, as usual, he was very fair in what he said. What he basically said is it is the middle class that grows this economy. It is the middle class that needs to be lifted up. It is the middle class that cannot afford tax hikes. Those at the very top can do just a little bit more. It is a very simple point. I hope, given that everyone says they are for the middle class--I know my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say that every day, that they agree with that--that finding this compromise will not be elusive but will come to pass. I have been here for a while. My understanding is we have not met between Christmas and New Year's Day since 1962. So it does take a crisis of major proportions to make that happen. I think we are in a crisis right now, but it is a self-made one. It is a self-imposed one. It is similar to the crisis we had on the debt ceiling--self-imposed. It is not some, God forbid, exterior attack on our country which we could not prevent. It is not some, God forbid, plague or a terrible virus that is running across the land. To me it is something that is not that complicated. As the President said, we have a series of tax cuts that are expiring. If we let them expire, it means there will be a huge tax increase, mostly hitting the middle class and the working poor. The upper incomes, the people in that category, have done so well that even they say they would have to talk to their accountant before they even knew there was any impact on their tax bill. So we can come together. The President favored a limit which would be $250,000, meaning that everyone who earns up to that would get a tax break. Everybody's income up to $250,000 gets a tax break, everybody, 100 percent of the people. But those who are fortunate to have higher incomes would go back to the tax rates that prevailed when Bill Clinton was President. Why the other side is horrified by that is perplexing to me. I look back at the Clinton era. I was here. That is a long time ago. I came to the Senate with Senator Feinstein when Bill Clinton was President, and he faced similar issues in that we had a deficit that was getting out of control, a debt that was getting out of control. We needed to have growth. So he put forward a budget plan that invested in our people, invested in the infrastructure, invested in education, and at the same time said we can find cuts in other areas and we can raise taxes on those who are doing very well. What happened with that fair and balanced approach? What happened was the greatest prosperity in modern history--23 million jobs, no more deficits, we got to a balanced budget. I remember saying to my husband: My goodness, what is going to happen? There will not be any more U.S. Government bonds because we are going to be out of the debt situation. We saw it on the horizon. When George W. Bush became President, he decided to go back, backward on rates across-the-board, from the wealthiest to the middle to the poor, and he put two wars on a credit card and we are where we are. To add to this history, we all know we are coming out of the worst recession since the Great Depression. It has been difficult. It was led by, unfortunately, some unscrupulous people on Wall Street who created a nightmare in the housing market. I remember saying to Treasury Secretary Paulson: Can you please explain the role of derivatives here and what happened and how we got into this crisis? He put his head in his hands and he said: Not now. I will talk to you later. That is not very encouraging when the Secretary of the Treasury puts his head in his hands and says I can't explain it now. We are coming out of this difficult time, and guess what. We are doing much better. We had an election. It was pretty clear. People want to see us reach a balance. As I stand here, I know there are negotiations going on in the rooms surrounding us. I wish for the best, I hope for the best, and I ask for the best. There is a word called ``compromise.'' It doesn't mean you compromise your principles, but it means that you can compromise because that is what the American people want us to do. Yes; they do. I wish to give an example. Say you were out hiking. Mr. President, in your State there are a lot of hikers. If you saw someone on a cliff, trapped, caught on a rope and you knew the only way to save the person was first to cut the rope--you are standing with someone else and you say: Cut the rope at the top. He says: Cut the rope at the bottom, and you stand there arguing; meanwhile, the man is struggling on this cliff: Get me down. Wouldn't it be smart to cut the rope in the middle and save the guy? You can argue later, should I have cut the rope at the top or the bottom--no, cut it in the middle, save the man. That is a pretty simplistic example of where we are. But I have the privilege of knowing we can get it done when we work together. I was so proud to bring to this Senate a highway bill, a transportation bill. Millions of jobs were at stake. Our States were worried they would stop getting their highway funds. We would have had to stop road projects in the middle. We would not have had State funding for transit. But you know what happened. Senator Inhofe and I sat in a room. You could not find two more divergent people in their thinking, he a conservative Republican and I a progressive Democrat. We sat in a room and he said I want this, this, and this. I said I want that, that, and that. Then we said let's make a deal. Let's meet in the middle. We did it--much to everyone's surprise--and that bill passed the Senate. When it got to the House, it got stuck. So Senator Inhofe and I and Senator Reid went over to meet with John Boehner and Chairman Mica and we all agreed we would get it done. Neither side got everything they wanted. Anyone who takes that position, in my opinion, is not putting country first. I don't care whether they are Republican, Democrat or anything else. We are not, each of us, going to get everything we want, Lord knows. There is a lot I could do if I had a wand and could make it happen. But everybody has a different view of exactly how to go forward. I think we are being tested. I know it is tough going. I know if we do not get a deal, it does not stop there; we will keep on working. But there is no reason on this beautiful, God's green Earth why we cannot get a deal. If everyone is sincere and saying they want the middle class to be protected, we can get a deal. President Obama says $250,000 is the line. Maybe I think $350,000 is the line; maybe someone else, $500,000; maybe someone else, $150,000. We can meet somewhere and cut that rope somewhere in the middle and save this country from the uncertainty that plagues us right now. In the olden days--when I say ``olden,'' it is a long time ago--I was a stockbroker. I was an economics major and a stockbroker on Wall Street. The thing Wall Street and investors cannot take is uncertainty. If they know taxes are going up, they will refigure things. If they know taxes are going down, they will refigure things. If they know taxes are staying the same, they will figure it out. But right now they are frozen because they do not know. Families are also, in many ways, frozen. They do not know whether they have to budget so they will have $2,000 less next year. They do not know whether it will be $4,000. They don't know if it is ever going to change. The uncertainty is the fault of leaders who cannot get together. I think it is critical that we get a deal, and I hope it is in the next couple of hours. I believe it was a reporter who asked me: What is the difference if it is done now or 5 days from now? I said the difference is this uncertainty, this pall, and an unneeded escalating crisis. Then someone might say: Well, we don't have to do it now. We will do it on January 4. Well, we don't have to do it on January 4; we will get it done on the 10th. We need to get it done. America wants us to get it done. The President has shown that he is willing to be flexible. He has come out with some ideas that I have to swallow--very hard--to accept. I know personally how strongly he feels that $250,000 should be where we draw the line when we allow tax breaks, but he was willing to offer $400,000. He was willing to look at changing some of our programs. It is very tough for him to do that, but he is willing to do that even though he ran on his program and won by millions of votes on his program. So if the President can be flexible and say: OK, I will step back from everything I really want to do and move in the direction of the Republicans, then the Republicans need to move in our direction. I think we are going to be judged by whether we are going to be stuck in the mud because we just don't have the courage to change or whether we step forward at this moment. I think it should be this moment. If we cannot get it done, I certainly hope we will have an up-or-down vote on the President's plan, which I feel was very fair. The President offered a plan. Do I like everything about it? Absolutely not. But he showed he is willing to take those steps. I would hate to think our colleagues would filibuster that and demand a 60-vote threshold as we go over this cliff. The American people are hanging from the cliff, and we can let them down very gently today and solve this problem. If all we do is stand and stay in our corners, I am very fearful the message is that we don't know how to meet each other halfway, and that is not a good thing. Voters are going to turn on those people who stand in their corners and don't move. That is not the role of legislators. I will close with this. We have a different form of government than they have in Europe. This is not a parliamentary system. In a parliamentary system, one government rules everything, one party rules everything. They have the Prime Minister, the equivalent of the Speaker, and the leader all in one party, and then they don't compromise. They put their agenda there and get their program through. If there is a lack of confidence, the people can change parties. The next party then comes in and does what it wants. That is not what we do here. Sometimes I wish it were the form of government we had because at least there would be some action and we would know what to expect. We would not have this uncertainty because each party has its dreams, its hopes, its plans, and they would have a chance to get those policies through. We don't have that here. We have to meet each other halfway because the House is run by the Republicans, and it will be next year. The Senate is run by the Democrats, but it is not a supermajority. We have to deal with our colleagues. The President is a Democrat. We have to work together. That is the name of the game. If I can work with Jim Inhofe on the highway bill and Debbie Stabenow can work with Pat Roberts on the farm bill--and there are other examples I could give. For instance, Senator Feinstein worked with her Republican counterpart. I could give many examples on the Appropriations Committee. We know we can do this. We just have to take a deep breath and put our egos aside for this country's sake and make those compromises that allow us to still stand tall. I am only 5 feet, so that's hard, but you get the point. We can do this, and we should do it now. If we don't do it now, we should vote on the President's plan because the people of this country deserve better than to be left hanging on a cliff. They don't deserve that. It is not right. Thank you very much. I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum. I ask that the time be equally divided between the two sides.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, how much time remains on this side?

Mrs. BOXER. Will the Presiding Officer let me know when I have talked for 4 minutes.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I wish to thank Senator Corker for his remarks and join in with his support for Carol Galante. She has a long and distinguished career of building and promoting affordable housing, and she is very well qualified. She began her career as a housing coordinator for the city of Santa Barbara, rising to become the city's housing and redevelopment manager. I want to point out that Santa Barbara is a magnificent part of my State. I have a beautiful State. At the time, they didn't have much in the way of moderate-income housing, and that was part of the very important work she did. She moved on to Eden Housing, a nonprofit affordable-housing developer, where she developed over 400 homes as a project manager. She eventually took over as executive director. She later joined BRIDGE Housing as vice president, and in 1996 she took the helm of that organization as its president and chief executive. BRIDGE is the largest nonprofit developer of affordable- income and mixed-use developments in California. While she was there, Carol oversaw the creation of 13,000 affordable homes for more than 35,000 Californians and programs that helped one-fourth of their residents advance to home ownership because she knew that was the goal. Home ownership, even after all we have been through, is the dream, and she understands that. So in 2009, President Obama appointed Carol as HUD's Deputy Assistant Secretary for multifamily housing programs where she oversaw a $50 billion portfolio of affordable and market rate multifamily properties through FHA's multifamily insurance program. At a time when support for housing was desperately needed, she took a smaller staff and grew annual lending from $2.5 billion to over $10 billion. Carol has served for a year now as Acting Commissioner for FHA where she has worked to weed out bad lenders, ensuring greater stability of the reverse mortgage program, and increasing counseling resources for borrowers. As we look over what happened in the housing sector, we know people bought homes who shouldn't have bought homes, lenders took advantage of them, and everybody was in the mix in terms of why things went so sour. Carol's accomplishments have been recognized through numerous honors, including inductions into the Hall of Fame for Bay Area business leaders in California. She has been recognized by California Home Building and the California Housing Consortium. So she gets support from everybody--from the builders, from the homeowners, from the renters. Carol has the strong support of a broad coalition of housing advocates and lenders. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from the Mortgage Bankers Association and a letter from what looks to be two or three dozen other housing organizations.

Mrs. BOXER. So we have someone who understands the business side, the renter side, and the home ownership side. I am very proud this woman is a Californian. I know there are lots of issues within FHA, and we all have to work on them, and we have heard that from Senator Corker. But, my goodness, we want someone who can work with us. She is the perfect person. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I wish to read from a letter the majority and minority leaders received from the Mortgage Bankers Association, the National Association of Homebuilders, and the National Association of Realtors. These are the businesspeople, and this is what they said about her: Carol Galante will bring tremendous expertise and a deep commitment to strengthening FHA's programs . . . Her decades of work in affordable housing development and more recently, managing FHA's multifamily programs, give her a unique perspective on the issues facing our nation's housing and mortgage markets. So here we have a person who understands the business side, and she understands the renters and the owners.

Mrs. BOXER. I ask for an additional 30 seconds, please.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I wish to associate myself with the eloquent remarks made by my colleague Senator Durbin, Senator Reid, and all those who have come to praise a one-of-a-kind Senator and extraordinary human being, my friend Dan's Inouye. I was telling Senator Lieberman that when the Senate put on a little retirement dinner for our retiring Senators--including Senator Lieberman--there was Senator Inouye. When we look back, it was only 2 weeks ago. We know he could not have been strong, he was not well, but he came to that dinner and sat at that table because of the love and respect for the individual Senators and for this institution. As for me, I will miss Danny's sonorous voice, his big heart, his self-effacing manner, his integrity, and his patriotism. Over the years, so many of us have worked together on so many issues with Dan. I worked on bringing a state-of-the-art, first ever comprehensive casualty care center to my State to take care of the wounded vets who were coming home without their limbs, post-traumatic stress, and all the problems they had. There was no such place on the west coast, and with Dan's help--and we worked with Senator Stevens--we got it done. Now that facility really stands as a tribute to Dan's Inouye. In 2010 I had a very difficult campaign, as most of us did at that time, and Dan's said: I am going to come out there and help you. I was under fierce attack, and we had an event for veterans. Dan's was a speaker, and I was a speaker. As I was speaking, we heard these voices of screaming demonstrators yelling things that were not complimentary toward me, let's put it that way. It was very loud, and I was so humiliated and embarrassed. Here was this amazing patriot, and they would keep screaming when Danny was speaking about my work and his work for veterans. Sure enough, the demonstrators kept it up, and I was so upset. I went up to him and I put my arm around him when he was finished and said: Dan, I am so embarrassed. I am so sorry. He said: Barbara, they are not going to beat you by screaming. Don't worry about it. He went on to go to a couple of other events, and he took his wife to them. He was extraordinary. I loved Danny with all of my heart. Every time I looked at him, I smiled because he was so good. He was such a good person, and I pay tribute to him today. I don't think we will ever replace him. We will never replace this remarkable American. He personified the meaning of love and the meaning of country. I send my love to his family.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. In my remaining remarks, I want to talk about what happened in Connecticut. First, to the Senators from Connecticut, I send all my strength. I have gone through things like this, although not quite the same. As a mom and grandma, I know all of our hearts are broken. So many people are touched by gun violence. I want to go back to July of 1993. A gunman with an assault weapon walked into a law office in San Francisco and killed eight people and wounded six. Just as we see in Connecticut, the stories of heroism came forward. One of the people who was killed was a brave young lawyer who threw his body over his wife's body, sacrificing his own life to save hers. That young man was one of my son's best friends. This was so long ago, but it feels like yesterday because time stops when these things happen. I know without a shadow of a doubt how these horrific and senseless tragedies live on with the survivors and all of us forever. The psyche of the parents, the spouses, the children, the families, and the friends is pierced forever. Yes, as human beings, after these tragedies we come together. We try to find meaning, we try to find justice, and we try to find love in the midst of the mayhem. Some find solace in their faith and their God, some find solace in their communities, and some never find solace. The slaughter of the innocent must stop. I say to my colleagues in Connecticut how deeply everyone has been touched by this tragedy. In my communities at home, people are running up to me and saying: Our hearts are breaking. He killed babies. They were barely on this Earth. They trusted us, and we failed them. Some of the people coming up to me are proud gun owners, and they are saying: Why couldn't we stop a sick person like this from getting a high-capacity clip? The gunman didn't even have to reload his weapon until he fired off 30 shots. There is the whole issue of protecting our schools, which is something I have cared about. I have a school safety act. I have introduced it so many times, and I will introduce it again. Instead of having an appointment with a mental health professional, this mentally ill young man had an appointment with death. People say: Don't talk about doing anything about this now; it is not the time. To them I say: When is the time? If we go back to 2009--that is the last year we have records--31,347 people died from gun violence in our Nation. That is 87 people every day of the year. Another 73,000-plus were injured. So 87 people a day are killed by gun violence. When is the time to speak out? Because every day there is another tragedy. Without going into specifics, there are certain things we need to do. First, we have to take the weapons of war and high-capacity clips off our streets; second, we have to ensure that local law enforcement is involved in concealing carried permits; third, we have to close the gun show loophole so background checks are conducted; fourth, we have to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill and get them the help they need; five, we need to keep our schools safe by utilizing all the law enforcement tools at our disposal. We have failed our children. We have to stop worrying about our political skins because judgments will be made about us. So let's pull together. Let's show our children we love them, not just by telling them we love them--we must do that--but by showing them we will protect them. I send my love to everyone in Connecticut trying to pull themselves together. I send my love and support to my colleagues whom we will hear from now. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I would like to commemorate the centennial of commercial rice production in California. What began as an experimental crop in the Sacramento Valley has become a more than billion-dollar industry for our State and an exceptional agricultural product enjoyed by consumers worldwide. Rice was introduced in California during the Gold Rush, when immigrants traveled to the State in search of fortune and a better life. As early as 1870, European and Asian settlers began to experiment with different varieties of rice that they had grown back in their homelands. After attempts to grow long grain rice were unsuccessful, the USDA concluded that California's climate would be more amenable to a Japanese medium-grain variety known as Kiushu. When Kiushu failed to thrive in southern and coastal areas of California, it was discovered that the Sacramento Valley had the most ideal soil and climate conditions for the high-quality Japanese varieties of rice. By 1908, Kiushu rice was successfully being grown in the community of Biggs in Butte County. The California Rice Experiment Station, established in Biggs in 1912, has helped farmers perfect the short- and medium-grain rice crop for the last century. More than 95 percent of the State's rice is grown in the Sacramento Valley region of California. Rice has become one of the State's top agricultural exports. According to the California Rice Commission, California rice is used in nearly every roll of sushi made in the United States and represents more than 30 percent of the Nation's rice exports to countries such as Japan, Taiwan, and Korea. This year's crop is expected to yield 5 billion pounds and represents $1.8 billion in economic value. In addition to supplying consumers with this fine agricultural product, California rice fields serve as an important habitat for migratory birds along the Pacific Flyway. After the fields are harvested in the fall, growers flood them to create feeding grounds that yield nearly 60 percent of the food needed by 10 million waterfowl each winter. I congratulate California's 2,500 family rice farmers on this centennial of successful rice production, and organizations such as the California Rice Commission and Farmers' Rice Cooperative that have worked to promote and export this fine product all over the world.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am proud to offer my support for the confirmation of Magistrate Judge Fernando M. Olguin to the U.S. district court for the Central District of California. Judge Olguin was recommended to the President by my colleague, Senator Feinstein, and will be a great addition to California's Central District. Judge Olguin will bring to the bench his broad experience as a skilled lawyer and a Federal magistrate. A graduate of Harvard University and the University of California, Berkeley School of Law, Judge Olguin worked from 1995 to 2001 as a partner for the law firm of Traber, Voorhees, and Olguin. In 2001, he received an appointment to become a magistrate judge in the Central District of California, where he has served with great distinction. I urge my colleagues to support the Olguin nomination.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, today I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Carmen Harvey Warschaw, the great California philanthropist and political leader who died at age 95 on election day, a week after she had made sure to vote by mail. Carmen was a trusted mentor, adviser, and dear friend to me, and I will miss her. Carmen Harvey was born in Los Angeles in 1917. Her parents had immigrated to America from Lithuania, and her father founded the Harvey Aluminum Company. Carmen grew up in La Canada, graduated from the University of Southern California, and married Louis Warschaw, her high school sweetheart. From an early age, both Carmen and Lou were active in the California Democratic Party. Throughout the years, Carmen worked tirelessly to elect Democrats at the local, State, and national level. She attended every Democratic National Convention from 1948 to 2008, many as a delegate. In the mid sixties she served as the party's Southern California chairwoman, was a member of the Democratic National Committee, the first woman to chair the California Fair Employment Practices Commission, and a board member of California's coastal and fair housing commissions. Carmen's passion for politics was equaled by her compassion and philanthropy. She was an active member of many organizations, including the Los Angeles Music Center, the Truman Library Institute, the Jewish Federation of Greater Los Angeles, and the Women's Guild and Helping Hand of Los Angeles. Carmen long served as a member of the board of directors at Cedars- Sinai, where she endowed medical and research chairs and founded the PROs, which funds the Louis Warschaw Prostate Cancer Center. Two years ago, at age 93, Carmen joined me on a tour of the Cedars-Sinai Emergency Room and Operating Room; I remember joking that she was the only person I knew who could get me to put on scrubs. Carmen was also very generous to her alma mater, USC, where she and Lou helped to establish the Casden Institute for the Study of the Jewish Role in American Life and the Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics at USC. In 2003, Carmen endowed a chair in practical politics at the Unruh Institute so that students could learn about the nuts and bolts of politics as part of their political science education. This world and Carmen's beloved State of California are much better places thanks to her passion, compassion, and commitment. On behalf of the people of California, I send my deepest gratitude and condolences to her daughters, Hope and Susan; her sons-in-law, John Law and Carl Robertson; her grandchildren, Jack Law-Warschaw, Cara Robertson, and Chip Robertson; and her great-grandchildren and many friends. We will all miss this dynamic force of nature and extraordinary woman.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. That is fine.

Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise to speak on a number of matters. Before Senator Hatch leaves the floor, I really do think it is important that we listen to what he said, but I also think his criticism of the majority leader was really over the top. We just finished a defense bill, I say to my friend, that had over 100 amendments. I chair the Environment and Public Works Committee. We had a transportation bill that had endless amendments.

Mrs. BOXER. I yield to the Senator.

Mrs. BOXER. I am glad the Senator cleared that up.

Mrs. BOXER. Reclaiming my time.

Mrs. BOXER. I was here in the minority, and I was able to exercise the filibuster, and I was able to stop a lot of legislation that came over from Newt Gingrich's House. I believe in the filibuster completely, and I think it is important to protect minority rights. But I do think there is such a thing as the use of the filibuster versus the abuse of the filibuster. So my position has always been clear that I think the abuse of the filibuster is wrong. When I first came here, I thought, well, we should just do away with the 60-vote rule. I came to understand that I didn't really, at the end of the day, wind up believing that was wise. So I am working with colleagues to figure out a way we can have a talking filibuster but protect the rights of the minority. But I have to say, I don't think there ought to be a filibuster allowed on a motion to proceed to a bill. We have seen that abused and abused and overused. These are the kinds of things we should get together on as colleagues, as friends, across the issues that divide us and not engage in filibusters on a motion to proceed to a bill. There is plenty of time to filibuster the bill itself. There is plenty of time to argue. But it seems to me whoever is the majority leader, be it a Democrat or a Republican, he or she should have the right to take us to a bill. I think that is a power that should lie with the majority, whoever that majority is. So I would certainly approve of fixing that problem. In addition, how many filibusters do we have to have before we go to conference? I will support one and we will fight it out. But three motions that can be filibustered before going to conference? That is not doing the people's business. Imagine if a bill gets all the way to that conference phase. Remember, it has gone through the committees of the House and Senate, it has gone through the votes of the House and Senate, it has gone through the conference committee to a vote of the conference committee. Why on Earth should we be allowed to filibuster three motions? So I think there are ways we can work together. I know my friends from Tennessee and New York at one point were working on ways to prevent any President, be it a Democrat or Republican, from facing filibusters on more or less routine nominations. I could support that change too. But I do want to say, as I look at the abuse of the filibuster versus use of the filibuster-- and, again, I believe the rights of the minority must be protected--we have to look at the bold, stark facts. Since Harry Reid became the leader here, he has had to face 388 filibusters. The last time the Democrats were in the minority we forced half as many. I think that is too much, but it is only half as many. So we have our majority leader facing twice as many as Democrats led, and it has gotten out of hand. Members can stand up here and say it is a horrible thing to try to change the rules, but my test is abuse versus use. I think we can come together and avert any type of showdown at the OK Corral. That is ridiculous. We don't need that. We can talk as friends and figure out some of these commonsense reforms that we can do without having to get angry at one another. I don't think it serves anyone's purpose if we are all angry at one another over this. The Fiscal Cliff My last comments have to do with the fiscal cliff. I stand here 21 days before a tax increase on all Americans is going to occur. This tax increase will go up $2,200 for an average middle-class family. That is the bad news. Taxes are going to rise. Here is the great news. The great news is the Senate already passed legislation to fix the problem. And guess what. We didn't do it yesterday or the day before yesterday. We saw it coming and we passed it on July 25, 2012. We passed the middle-class tax cuts. My understanding is we took care of the AMT. The fact is all that now has to happen is for the House to take up our bill. If they take up our bill and they pass our bill, we will see everyone in America keep their tax cuts up to $250,000 in income, and after that $250,000 we will go back to the Clinton rates. But here is the really good news, if we do that: We will raise $1 trillion and reduce our debt by $1 trillion. There is no reason why Speaker Boehner shouldn't bring this bill to a floor vote. He will win the vote because I know Democrats and some Republicans will definitely support him. He needs to be Speaker of the House, not Speaker of the Republicans, just as Tip O'Neill, when I was there, wasn't Speaker of the Democrats, he was Speaker of the House. As a matter of fact, the way Tip did it is, he would get half the Democrats and half the Republicans--and he didn't care what you were, an Independent, whatever your affiliation, conservative, liberal--and he would go up to you and say: Can you be with me on this? It is good for the country. Ronald Reagan and I agree. That was Tip O'Neill. And I know what that is like. Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill. So it ought to be President Obama and John Boehner saying: We should pass this middle-class tax cut. Here is the thing I don't get. When the Bush tax cuts went into place they were passed overwhelmingly by Republicans. Why wouldn't the same Republicans want to make sure they continue for 98 percent of the people? I don't get it. I did not vote for the Bush tax cuts then. I am going to vote for them now, for the 98 percent, because we are coming out of a tough time. I didn't vote for them then. You know why? I said we would go into huge deficits. And I don't want to say I was right, but we did go into a huge period of deficits. It was that, plus two wars on a credit card, and it was a prescription drug benefit that was not paid for by allowing Medicare to negotiate for lower prices. I voted against that too. So here we are at a magic moment in time--a magical moment because it is the holiday season--and we know the Senate passed the middle-class tax cuts in July, and we know there are 21 days left before taxes go up on 98 percent of the people. Rhetorically, I ask the Speaker: Why don't you just pass this? Today I read the Speaker of the House said: Well, I don't want to do this until I see what programs Barack Obama is going to cut. That is his latest thing. To which I respond: Here is the deal. In the debt ceiling fight we cut $1 trillion of spending. It is shown in those caps that we vote on. Very tough, $1 trillion in spending cuts over 10 years. That equals what we will get from the tax hikes on those over $250,000. Plus, as part of health care reform, we found savings in Medicare of $700 billion. By the way, the Republicans ran ads against our people saying the Democrats cut Medicare, and we explained they were savings, because what we did is we told providers: Cut down on fraud and abuse--you are overcharging. Be that as it may, the Republicans were just wiping their brow and crying for the Medicare recipients and saying we cut Medicare. Now they want more Medicare cuts. They have come up with a plan which would raise the age of Medicare, which I think is completely disastrous, and I will tell you why. If we were to raise the age of Medicare recipients, we would leave 300,000 seniors uninsured. Just what we want. Happy New Year, Merry Christmas, and Happy Hanukkah all in one. We would increase the cost to businesses by $4.5 billion because people would stay longer on the business payroll--their medical payroll--at an age when they are getting older. We would increase out-of-pocket health care costs for those age 65 and 66 by over $3 billion. We would increase costs to the States by $700 million. We would cost millions of seniors age 65 and 66 $2,200 more for health care. And we would increase premiums for all other seniors enrolled in Medicare by 3 percent because the population enrolled in Medicare would be older and less healthy. In other words, we would be pulling the healthiest seniors out of Medicare so that those who are left are sicker, and premiums would go up on everybody else. The source for these statistics is the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Congressional Budget Office. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record these facts regarding the raising of the Medicare eligibility age.

Mrs. BOXER. I want to say this rhetorically to Speaker Boehner, and I will quote Senator Stabenow, who is quite eloquent on this point. You have a three-legged stool here: You have reductions in spending, which we did in the debt ceiling argument of $1 trillion. It is done. You have cuts in the so-called entitlements of $700 billion, which was done under Obamacare--that is Medicare. The only thing we haven't taken care of is the third leg, which is revenues, and we are suggesting for that $1.7 trillion that we get $1 trillion in revenues. There have been no revenues put on the table. The Republicans in the House are defending the billionaires, the millionaires--the Koch brothers and all the rest--from having to pay their fair share. In closing, I would say the American people are very smart. I believe they understand this. They understand what it means to raise the age of Medicare, which we are not going to do. They understand what it means if we do not make sure they get that renewed tax cut. They understand what it means when they see millionaires and billionaires who not only have made even more millions and billions, but the disparity between the middle class and the millionaires and billionaires has grown wildly. This last election was a lot about that. In this election that was not a side issue--that millionaires and billionaires aren't paying their fair share. It was not a side issue that we should have a budget issue that is fair. It is not a side issue. It is very easy to resolve this. It is not a good idea for us to fall off that cliff. It is not a necessary thing. So I say to the Republicans, you want a tax cut for everyone, including billionaires. How about taking it for 98 percent of the people? I think that is a deal you should grab and leave Medicare alone. Let's do this now, and when we come back we can get a budget deal that is fair all around. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I think we are trying to make the case here today that there is a very easy way for us to climb down from this fiscal cliff. The Senate already passed a bill that would extend tax cuts to 98 percent of the American people and the House will not take it up. This will mean, over 10 years, about $1 trillion in savings, and it won't hurt the millionaires and billionaires. They have told us that over and over. This is when the Senate passed the middle-class tax cuts, July 25, 2012. The Republicans over in the House have been sitting on it. They didn't do anything in July, August, September, October, November, and December. Here we are 6 months later and they refuse to allow a vote on this for reasons that go to their internal disputes. It is time for them to put country over party. It is time for them to put country over their ideological battles. That was a mouthful. I am going to try it again. It is time for them to put country over their ideological battles. It is time for them to make a decision that favors the American people. I served in the House for 10 proud years. It was wonderful, fascinating, interesting. I served there when Tip O'Neill was the Speaker of the House. Tip O'Neill understood the magic of 218. What do I mean by that? The magic of 218 was finding 218 votes to get something done. Tip didn't care if he got it from a liberal, from a conservative, from a moderate, from an independent, from a whacko. It didn't matter. He didn't care who you were, what you were, if you thought you were great or bright or not. He had to put together 218 for the good of the country, and he did it when Ronald Reagan was President. He did it when there was a President who had different views from his own, and they worked together for the good of the country. I look over at the House, and I don't know what I see. There are a few brave voices there speaking out and saying let us do this, let us extend the middle-class tax cuts. But let me tell you, we have 27 days left to do this before people start facing higher taxes. On average, it is $2,200 a family, and that is a lot of money for a middle-class family. I want to be completely honest here and bring up an issue, which is that I never voted for the Bush-era tax cuts--I was one of the few in the minority--because I worried that it would destroy our fiscal responsibility. I hate to say it now: I was right. I was right. There were surpluses that Bill Clinton left us. But because George W. Bush went in front of the microphone and said, I have political capital, I am going to cut everybody's taxes, he then put two wars on the credit card, and that was the end of surpluses. We went into deficits, deficits as far as the eye could see, deeper and deeper in debt. So you might ask then, Senator Boxer, why are you now supporting those tax cuts being renewed for 98 percent of the people? The answer is it is a different time and a different place. We are getting out of a recession. We can make up the monies we need to balance this budget by going just to the top rate, going to the people over $250,000. Remember, this plan that we passed in July gives a tax break on the first $250,000 of income, in essence giving everybody a break on that first $250,000. It is only after that that the taxes go back to the Clinton era. Because this is a different time and place, I support giving a tax break, continuing it, for 98 percent, but asking the wealthiest to pay their fair share for the greatest country on the face of this Earth. My father was born into dire poverty. He was the only one of nine children born in America. He was the only one of nine children to go to college at night in your great State, City College, at night, while he supported a family by day. He became a CPA. After he got his bachelor's, he went at night to a place called Brooklyn Law School, where he got his law degree in 5 years. I was about 10. This is America. He was able to do that. When he was a CPA, he would oversee everybody's taxes in the family. I was a kid and I got my first job working for a long time when I was a telephone operator for Hilton Hotels one summer. I will never forget it. I was not good at it. I kept putting those wires into the wrong places, but I managed to get through. When I got my first paycheck, I went to my dad, as I was earning minimum wage--I think it was 75 cents an hour, I don't know. I know I am dating myself here. It is okay. I said, ``Dad, why is it I have to pay a whole bunch of money somewhere else, to the government?'' He said, ``Well, we all, when we earn money, pay taxes. If at the end of the year we pay too much, we get a refund.'' But he said, ``Honey, I want to tell you something. You are so fortunate and blessed to be a citizen of the United States of America. I know people will laugh at you when you say this, but people who live here, who work here and have the privilege of that freedom and the privilege to grab the dream, they should kiss the ground of this country every time they pay taxes.'' I once said that on the campaign trail, and I got booed. They said, She is telling us to kiss the ground of America when we pay taxes? That was how my father felt. Clearly, he also believed in a progressive tax system. He was a smart man, and he believed that those at the bottom end shouldn't pay anything at all and, as you go up, you pay a little more. That is what President Obama ran on. We had a huge election for the Senate where the Democrats picked up seats. A race for the Presidency that was supposed to be Governor Romney's, according to his people, was President Obama's. This was mainly because President Obama stood up for the middle class and said, When it comes to taxes, we all have to pay our fair share, no more, no less. When you tell your friends the President wants to give a tax cut, tell them also it is being held up by the Republicans in Congress who are sitting on a bill that passed the Senate on July 25, 2012, where 98 percent of the American people will get their tax break continued and only income over $250,000 will be taxed at the same rate when Bill Clinton was President. Let's take a look back at those days. Were they harsh for people? No. We had more millionaires created, I remember in those days, than we had in generations. You know why? Because the middle class is strong--and President Clinton invested in the middle class; he invested in our people--they get good jobs, they pay enough taxes, they go to the mall, they take a trip across the country to see all the great landmarks, and people across this country who have businesses do well also. That is why we see so many businesspeople, including small businesspeople, standing at President Obama's side saying it is good for business to give the middle class their tax breaks. What are these Republicans thinking over there? If we are having an argument, and I tell you I will give you 98 percent of what you want and you walk away from me, I say you are unreasonable. Who gets 98 percent of what they want? No one. In an argument, usually we meet each other halfway--50-50. We are giving the Republicans 98 percent of what they want on the tax cuts, but they are holding the 98 percent hostage for their friends, the Koch brothers, Sheldon Adelson--the billionaires. That is wrong, and we had an election about it. This is a country of, by, and for the people, not of, by, and for the billionaires. I am going to say to my Republican friends--and they are my friends; I have served with them for a long time, I have worked with them--what are you thinking? What are you doing? Let me talk about one of the things they offered in their package. This is outrageous. They want to raise the eligibility age of Medicare by 2 years. I cannot tell you how many people come up to me--and it shocks me when I hear it--and say: I am praying for my 65th birthday so I can get on Medicare because I have no insurance. There is a huge number of people uninsured between the ages of 55 and 65. So this is their Christmas present? This is the happy holiday gift from Speaker Boehner? In the Speaker's tax package, not only is he giving the tax break to the wealthiest, he is even cutting their taxes further but paying for it by raising the Medicare age. What does that do? It is surprising just how bad it is. When we raise the age of Medicare from 65 to 67, ipso facto, 300,000 senior citizens go uninsured. Merry Christmas to all. It would increase the cost to businesses by $4.5 billion because they have to keep people on their plans. Merry Christmas to you, too, businesspeople. It will increase the out-of-pocket costs for those between 65 and 66 by $3.7 billion. It would increase costs to the States by $700 million, and millions--millions--would pay an average of $2,200 more for their health care. I will use every tool at my disposal to prevent the destruction of Medicare. What kind of counterproposal is that? It takes my breath away the pain that would be felt if this went through. I can't help remembering--and I am sure the Chair remembers as well--the attack leveled by Representative Paul Ryan, who was the Republican nominee for Vice President--he is chairman of the House Budget Committee--against President Obama for ``cutting'' $700 billion out of Medicare, when, in fact, the President got savings from people who were cheaters--the providers who were ripping off Medicare--and then put it back into Medicare and extended the life of the program by 8 years. These are the same people who ran ads against Democrats--maybe they did it to the Chair as well, I don't know--all across the country saying Democrats voted to cut Medicare. These same people who were crying these bitter tears are now suggesting destroying Medicare as we know it. I can't believe it. I truly can't believe it. I wonder whom they fight for? That is the basic question. Why are they here? Whom do they fight for? Do they fight for the middle class? I believe we do on our side of the aisle. I believe President Obama does. I believe, if we look at the tax package that came over from Speaker Boehner and all the cuts to Medicare--and by the way, the Presiding Officer is a leader in protecting children--we will see there are cuts to child nutrition in there, major cuts. I have to say: Why do they have to cut food to poor kids? Why do they have to kick people out of Medicare? Their answer is, if they were honest, to protect the billionaires and the millionaires. Because that is what it is about. We know it. It is a fact in evidence. I believe we owe more to the American people. We need to find a way back to the fiscal responsibility and the economic growth we had when Bill Clinton was President. I have served with five Presidents already--it is amazing--in my time in this Congress, and I have seen people come together in moments of crisis, such as when Social Security needed to be strengthened, when Medicare needed to be strengthened, when we had deficits as far as the eye could see and we had to resolve that. I have seen all that happen. We have 27 days left to see something good happen about this fiscal cliff. When people say, oh, it is very complicated, don't believe it. Don't believe it. It is not complicated. There are several parts to this fiscal cliff. The biggest one is the Bush-era tax cuts that are expiring on 100 percent of the people, and if they expire, it means people will have to pay more in taxes at a time when we don't want them to have to struggle. We want them to have disposable income because it is good for their families, it is good for the economy, it is good for business, and it is good for economic growth. The Bush-era tax cuts are expiring on December 31. Why don't we find the common ground, get rid of that issue, get those tax cuts to 98 percent of the middle class who need them and fight about the millionaires and the billionaires later? They are OK. They are fine. We need to do that simple step. The House must pass the Senate's bill which we passed on July 25. We did it. It is done. We don't have to worry about it. We did our job over here. We got the votes. So the House needs to pick it up and pass it over there. I understand that Democratic Leader Pelosi has done something very interesting. She has taken this bill, the same exact bill, and put it at the desk in the House and started what they call a discharge petition. What that means is, since Speaker Boehner will not bring up this bill, if 218 people sign the discharge petition, there will be an immediate vote on the floor. I wish to urge Republicans and Democrats and Independents over in the House to sign the discharge petition to have a vote. We have a few days left until the end of the year--27--to get this done. Then we can talk about the automatic spending cuts, and there are ways to stop those. People are upset about those. Personally, I think we have to make spending cuts, but I think we can soften the blow of those spending cuts by bringing home the money from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to this country. That would soften the blow of those cuts. We also need to be making some more investments in infrastructure, which we desperately need after superstorm Sandy hit New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Delaware, and Maryland. We now see our infrastructure has to be what we call hardened, made stronger. We can do that if we invest in our people. The President has offered a very clear plan that is fair that takes us off the fiscal cliff. We have 27 days to do the right thing. The Senate already passed the tax cuts for 98 percent of the people. All we are asking is for the House to do that, to match us, and then we can get back to the table and figure out a way to soften the blow of the automatic spending cuts. We can look at tax reform. Let me just say this about tax reform. When our colleagues complain about tax rates and say: We would rather close loopholes, watch out. In order to raise the kind of funds needed to lower this deficit, we would be looking at the two of the biggest ``deductions.'' One is for your mortgage and one is for charitable contributions. I would ask rhetorically: What billionaire do you know who has a mortgage? I don't, frankly, know any. They own their own homes. They are not hurt by that. But who does get hurt? The middle class. So let's do the right thing. We passed the right thing on July 25, 2012. We have 27 days left before taxes on the middle class go up. I know we have the wherewithal to do that. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Larry Hagman, who passed away last week in Dallas at the age of 81. Like most Americans and millions around the world, I knew Larry Hagman as J.R. Ewing, the best loved villain in television history. But I was also fortunate to know Larry as a passionate advocate and friend, and I will miss him. J.R. was larger than life, but Larry Hagman's life was much more than his most famous character. He was a devoted family man, a true friend, and an active citizen who worked with me to ensure that our families are protected from pollution and toxins. He also worked for years to fight lung cancer and promote alternative energy. His tireless commitment to improving his community and country continued until the very end of his extraordinary life. Just last month he launched the Larry Hagman Foundation to promote the educational benefits of theater, visual arts, music and dance and to fund organizations providing these instructional programs for low-income children. Born in Fort Worth, Larry was brought up by his maternal grandmother in Los Angeles. After attending a series of boarding schools, he moved back to Texas to live with his father, attorney Benjamin Hagman, whose clients later helped shape the character of J.R. Ewing. In 1951, Larry's mother--the great stage actress Mary Martin--got him a small role in the London production of South Pacific. A year later, Larry joined the Air Force and stayed in Europe as a director of USO theatrical shows. After working in New York theater and television, Larry Hagman became a TV star in the 1960s as Major Tony Nelson in the popular comedy series ``I Dream of Jeannie.'' In the 1970s, he appeared in numerous movies and television shows before landing the role of a lifetime on the primetime soap opera ``Dallas.'' As the charming and conniving businessman J.R. Ewing, Larry Hagman was the best-known television actor on earth. In 1980, between two seasons of ``Dallas,'' hundreds of millions of fans in 57 countries anxiously awaited the answer to the most famous question in TV history: ``Who Shot J.R.?'' Last year, Larry returned to television to begin a new series of ``Dallas,'' which became a hit on the TNT network; he was at work on the new season when he died. On behalf of the people of California and Larry's millions of fans and admirers, I send my appreciation and condolences to his wife, Maj; his children, Preston and Kristina; and his five granddaughters. I know that they--and all of us--will miss this marvelous man.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating the 100th anniversary of the Stockton Gurdwara, the first Sikh temple in the United States. In the 1890s, the first Sikh immigrants, mostly from Punjab in northwestern India, arrived at Angel Island Immigration Station. These pioneering immigrants had crossed the vast Pacific and came to the shores of California in hopes of a better and freer life. The San Joaquin Valley of California, with its Mediterranean climate and abundance of fertile soil and arable land reminded the new immigrants of their native Punjab, and became a place where many of them settled to raise crops that were native to Punjab. A tight-knit community, the Sikh residents of the San Joaquin Valley formed a committee to raise money for a temple. In September 1912, a plot of land was purchased on South Grant Street in Stockton to build the first Sikh temple in the United States. When the temple was consecrated on November 22, 1915, the Stockton Record reported that it was celebrated with impressive ceremonies. The Stockton Gurdwara became the birthplace of Sikhism in America. Over the past century, the Stockton Gurdwara has been a site of both religious and historical significance. It was home to America's first Punjabi-language newspaper and to the Ghadar Party, which supported Indian independence for decades before it was achieved. Bhagat Singh Thind, a civil rights advocate and the first Sikh to serve in the United States Army during World War I, and Dalip Singh Saund, the first Asian American elected to Congress, were members of the Stockton Gurdwara. Today, the Stockton Gurdwara remains the spiritual home to generations of Sikh Americans in the San Joaquin Valley. It also stands as a testament to the rich history, invaluable contributions, and progress of the Sikh community in America. I congratulate the Stockton Gurdwara on its 100th anniversary and wish its members continued success.

Mrs. BOXER

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

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, just in the lull here--and if there is any legislative business to take place, I will immediately give up the floor--I wish to make the point that I am so proud to be in this Senate, so proud to have been here for a long time now. I came here in 1993. There were 2 women, then we went to 6 women, and now we are going to 20 women. I have seen changes, I have seen good things, and I have seen rough things. I have to say one of the things that keeps coming up continually here is folks trying to use these debates on bills to add irrelevant amendments, amendments that have nothing to do with the topic at hand. I think we all agree that defending our Nation is our No. 1 priority, and therefore having a defense authorization bill is very important. I am sure we don't agree with every single sentence of this bill, but in general we all want to make sure that our military is prepared, that they are paid well, that they get good benefits. We must ensure we have a strong military that can meet every threat. Again, we are going to disagree on what all that means, but at least when we legislate, we ought to make sure that when we offer amendments, they are either noncontroversial and committee chairs have signed off if they are in their jurisdiction or we shouldn't offer them. The reason I rise today is that we may be facing two environmental riders on this bill, and I want to go on record as saying I am not going to let that happen. Now, if colleagues want to override and stay here through the night and the weekend, that is fine, but I am going to be staying right here because one of these amendments would say that the EPA, under the Toxic Substances Control Act, could never regulate the ingredients in ammunition. This means they could never regulate lead and they could never regulate perchlorate. Lead and perchlorate kill, they harm, they do damage to the thyroid, to brain development, and to the behavior of children. Pregnant women are harmed. So I am not going to allow an environmental rider to get onto this floor and pass this Senate when we are doing a defense bill which is meant to protect our people. I can tell you right now, you don't put a harmful environmental rider in the Defense bill when you are trying to pass a bill to protect our people, not make it easier for them to be exposed to dangerous lead, dangerous perchlorate, and other chemicals. There is a place and a time to do those amendments, and that would be on a relevant bill, a bill that comes out of the Environment Committee. That is fine. We can debate it then and have a vote when everyone understands the ramifications. Now there is threat here to have another environmental rider that deals with coal ash, the regulation of coal ash. What does that have to do with the military bill? Zero. The components of coal ash are a huge danger to people. We have seen the coal ash pile up and get loose. In the East, it just goes down in a rainstorm and destroys whole communities. There is an environmental rider waiting to be offered that would weaken the EPA's ability to go to that threat and get rid of it. I am very distressed, and I am sure you can hear it in my voice. I know there are differences around here, but I take my job seriously. As chairman of the Environment Committee, my job is to protect the public health from toxins such as lead, perchlorate, and the amazing collection of chemicals in coal ash that kill and harm and maim. I know people want to get this bill done, and, believe me, I want to get this bill done. I have several amendments in this bill that are so important, and I thank colleagues on both sides of the aisle, particularly Senator Cornyn and Senator Snowe, who helped me with an amendment that would say that if someone has been convicted of a sexual assault, they can no longer join the military. That is in this bill. That is very important. We have other amendments we have worked on, and I thank Senator Levin and Senator McCain. They have reached out to the committee chairs, and they have said: Look, we are trying to protect your jurisdiction. They have now said they have no agreement that our jurisdiction will be protected. As much as I don't want to sit here and stand guard, I am going to do it because I think that is my role and that is my job. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this moment to express the reason I have been on the floor all afternoon and will continue to be on floor until we adjourn this evening. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.