Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Thank you, very much. Let me say that this is a very important debate. When we look at the two plans, the Republican tax cut plan versus the Democratic tax cut plan, what we see is one is for the middle class; that is, the Democratic plan. One is for our middle-class families. It includes tuition tax credits, and an enhanced child tax credit. It is very important that we do that. The other is a giveaway to the millionaires and the billionaires. It is amazing to me that it is not enough for my Republican friends to give everyone a tax break in this Nation of ours up to the first $250,000 of income and then say after that we are going to go to the tax rates of Bill Clinton. In those years, unlike the Bush years, we created 23 million jobs, and we created surpluses as far as the eye could see. But my Republican friends want to go backward to the Bush years, to the trickle-down years. Here is the problem. They do it on the backs of the middle class. They claim our plan will hurt small business owners. Let me be clear. Ninety-seven percent of small business owners earn less than $250,0000 a year. So all that talk about job creators is nothing but talk. It is nothing but a smokescreen for the highest earners in America. Here is another problem. The Republican plan adds $930 billion to the deficit over 10 years. It is a problem. In 1 year, the first year, it is a $50 billion add-on to the deficit. I have heard my Republican colleagues cry about sequestration. They do not want it, even though they agreed to it when we made our deal around the debt ceiling. Let's remember that. They did not want to give an increase to the debt ceiling. They held everybody hostage. We lost our credit rating. Even Ronald Reagan said: Never play with the debt ceiling. They played with it. They played a game with it. Then, to get out of it, they said: OK. We will sequester if we do not have the debt deal. Now they are crying about sequester. Guess what. If we do the Democratic deal, we save $50 billion. We could cut that sequester in half. But oh, no, they want to do tax breaks for the wealthy few. This is the deal. Look at this chart. This is Robin Hood in reverse-- this is Robin Hood in reverse. The wealthiest among us get back $160,000 a year under the Republican plan. Let me repeat that. The wealthiest taxpayers in America will get back $160,000 a year under the Republican plan while the middle class gets harmed. They lose $1,100 a year for their tax credits on the tuition tax credit. They lose $800 a year from an enhanced child care tax credit, $500 a year from enhanced earned-income tax credit. So our families lose money, our middle-class families, while the wealthiest among us gets this enormous tax break and the deficit goes up and the debt goes up. When my colleague Senator Hatch says the Hatch-McConnell compromise is good, it is not a compromise. It is going right back to the problem that led us to this situation in the first place. It is going right back to the same policies of George W. Bush. Remember when George W. Bush became President? We had surpluses as far as the eye could see. Then he gave these tax breaks to the top 1 percent. By the way, this $160,000, that is the millionaires' tax break. They want to give tax breaks to the multimillionaires, to the billionaires, to the multibillionaires. They put no cap on the tax cuts whatsoever. Someone can earn $100 billion, they want to give them a tax break. There is a cost. There is a cost to the Treasury. There is a cost to the debt. There is a cost to the deficit. There is a cost to fairness. There is a cost to the middle class. I think the American people have weighed in on this one. They believe that to give a tax break to the first $250,000 of everybody's income is fair because then the people above that can pay a little more, the same rates they paid when Bill Clinton was President. We need to go back to those days when we created 23 million jobs and when we not only balanced the budget but we created surpluses as far as the eye could see. The question is, who are you fighting for? Are you fighting for the people who make a billion dollars a year? That is who the Republicans fight for. They get so emotional about it. Or are you fighting for the middle class, the heart and soul of America--the people who live in my towns, the people who live in towns across this Nation, the people who get up every day and put one foot in front of the other and work hard, the people who are trying to raise their families, the people who want us to be fiscally responsible, not have a tax cut that causes huge deficits? We have been there. Trickledown doesn't work; giving to the top doesn't work. It has brought us the worst recession since the Great Depression. Vote for the Democrats' plan and against the Republican plan, and do what our President said, which is get this country moving forward again. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I know that you and all of our colleagues will want to join me today in paying tribute to Dr. Sally Ride, the first American woman to fly in space, who died peacefully on Monday at her home in San Diego, CA. Sally Ride was 61 years old. Dr. Ride was a physicist, an astronaut, a science writer, and the president and CEO of Sally Ride Science, a nonprofit company dedicated to realizing her lifelong passion for motivating young people to stick with their interests in science and to consider pursuing careers in science, technology, engineering, and math. Sally Ride was born and grew up in Encino, CA. As a young girl, she was encouraged by her parents to pursue her two passionate interests: science and sports. At Stanford University, she studied physics, astrophysics, and English literature while becoming the school's number one women's tennis player. When asked what had made her choose science over tennis, she joked, ``A bad forehand.'' In 1977, as she was about to complete her Ph.D. in physics, Sally read that NASA was looking for astronauts and, for the first time, was allowing women to apply. From a group of 8,000 applicants, NASA selected 29 men and 6 women--including Sally Ride--as astronaut candidates in January 1978. The following year, she qualified for assignment on a space shuttle flight crew. On June 18, 1983, Sally Ride made history as the first American woman in space, part of a 147-hour mission aboard the shuttle Challenger. She later said, ``The thing that I'll remember most about the flight is that it was fun. In fact, I'm sure it was the most fun I'll ever have in my life.'' Sally Ride's historic space flight riveted the Nation and made her a household name--a symbol of women's ability to break barriers and achieve any goal, no matter how lofty. She immediately understood and appreciated her place in history, crediting the women's movement of the 1970s with paving her way into the space program. Dr. Ride made another space flight in 1984 and was preparing for a third when the Challenger exploded shortly after takeoff on January 28, 1986. She served on the Presidential commission investigating the Challenger tragedy and worked at NASA headquarters as special assistant to the administrator before retiring from NASA in 1987. After serving as a science fellow at Stanford's Center for International Security and Arms Control, Dr. Ride joined the faculty at the University of California, San Diego as a physics professor and director of the California Space Institute. In 2001 she founded Sally Ride Science to create educational programs that entertain, engage, and inspire young people. She served on the President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology, the National Research Council's Space Studies Board, and the boards of the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment, the Carnegie Institution of Washington, and the NCAA Foundation. Sally Ride pushed the limits of knowledge, courage, and accomplishment for all Americans, especially for girls and young women. As a pioneer in the final frontier of space, she showed millions of American girls that there was truly no limit on what they can do or where they can go. On behalf of the people of California, who have been so moved and inspired by Sally Ride's life and legacy, I send my deepest appreciation and condolences to her partner of 27 years, Tam O'Shaughnessy; her mother, Joyce; her sister, Bear; her niece, Caitlin; and her nephew, Whitney.

Mrs. BOXER

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

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I am proud to follow Senator Murray in her call to pass the bipartisan Senate bill which would reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act. The Leahy-Crapo bill is the only bill that will protect all of the women in our country. I well remember when Vice President Biden was then-Senator Biden, and in 1990 he wrote the Violence Against Women Act. I was in the House at the time. He asked if I would carry the House version of his bill. I was extremely honored to do that. We were able to pass small portions of the bill early in the 1990s. But it wasn't until I came to the Senate that we actually passed the entire bill, and I think it was Senator Schumer, who was then in the House, who picked up the ball on the bill in the House. It got passed. Since then we have seen a decline in domestic violence of 53 percent. But even so, even while the law is working, we have to strengthen it because, as the Presiding Officer knows because she is a leader in this cause, every day three women are killed by their abusive partners. Let me say that again. Every single day, three women are killed by their abusive partners. So in order to change this terrible statistic, we need to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act, and we need to improve it to protect more victims of domestic violence. That is what the Senate did. I am very proud of the Senate. We passed the bipartisan bill with a vote of 68 to 31, with 15 Republicans voting in favor. The Presiding Officer also worked hard to get the Transportation bill done. It was a very similar situation. The Senate had a bipartisan bill; it was a very popular bill. It had over 70 votes. The House was very slow to take up the measure, and we kept saying: Pass the Senate bill. Finally, they passed a small bill, and we got to conference, and we hammered it out. But here is the thing: We don't have time on this bill. We need to ask the House to take a look at our bill and to understand how important it is that everybody be included in the Violence Against Women Act. I am going to put up a chart that shows us how many people are left out of the House Violence Against Women Act. (Mr. CASEY assumed the chair.)

Mrs. BOXER. Now, I say Mr. President, we can see that 30 million people are left out of the House Violence Against Women Act. That is why we have seen a number of colleagues in the House call for passage of a bill such as the Senate's bill, because we include everybody. It isn't fair to leave entire groups out of the protections of the Violence Against Women Act, and that is exactly what they do in the House. The House bill ignores the wishes of law enforcement and excludes key protections for 4 million immigrants. It excludes 16 million LGBT persons from critical legal protections and services. More than 44 percent of LGBT victims who seek shelter are turned away. The House bill would also prevent Indian tribes from protecting almost 2 million Native American women from their abusers. This is outrageous. It is an extremely outrageous omission, given that nearly half of all Native American women have been victims of domestic violence. Let me repeat that: Almost half of all Native American women have been victims of domestic violence. Yet among the 30 million left out of the House Violence Against Women Act, we see the exclusion of the Native American community. Despite the epidemic of sexual assault and dating violence on our college campuses, the House bill leaves out improved protections for more than 11 million college women. The House bill would deny vital protections to women such as an immigrant woman who is my constituent who had been stabbed by her boyfriend 19 times while she was 3 months pregnant. During her ordeal, her boyfriend drove her from one part of town to the other, refusing to take her to the emergency room, even though she was losing consciousness and bleeding profusely. Thankfully, the woman received medical attention, the baby was not lost, and she made a full recovery. This brave woman, despite her physical and emotional scars, fully cooperated with police and the prosecutor to eventually bring her abuser to justice. A women's shelter helped her get a U visa based on her cooperation with law enforcement, and she and her child were able to move on with a new life. If we look at some of the most vulnerable people living in America today, in addition to our children--and I know what the Presiding Officer is dealing with in Pennsylvania, with an unbelievable, horrific, violent crime that took place on a college campus over a period of years--we know our children are vulnerable, and our immigrant women are extremely vulnerable, too, because they are scared they are going to be kicked out of the country and, therefore, their abuser knows that and puts them in a horrific situation, where if they go to the police to report the abuse on themselves and their kids, they may be kicked out of the country. That is why we have the U visas. The U visas say: If someone cooperates with law enforcement, they will not be kicked out. So we have to include immigrant women and, by extension, their children in the 30 million who are left out. We have to add them back in. The House bill fails to ensure that people such as Jonathon, a gay man who was abused by his partner of 13 years, receives full protection under the law and cannot be discriminated against. When Jonathon did seek shelter from his abuser, he was refused by three L.A. area domestic violence shelters, none of which could give him a reason for excluding him. But he was left out because this community was not mentioned in the Violence Against Women Act. It is not mentioned in the House act, and Jonathon falls among the 30 million who are left out of the House act. The House bill also leaves out students such as Mika, who was physically assaulted by her ex-boyfriend while she was in college in San Francisco. Her ex-boyfriend broke her phone, broke into her home, stole her belongings, stalked her at school, and severely beat her. She got a restraining order against him but struggled to get her school to enforce that restraining order. She should not have had to struggle. She should have had the school on her side. Sadly, only the Senate bill would help her, not the House bill. The House bill does not protect these women. Only the Senate bill ensures that all women, LGBT individuals, and college students are protected equally under the law, as well as Native American women. The consequences of denying anyone the critical protections in the Violence Against Women Act are too great. When someone is bleeding on the floor, we need to help them in this great country. We do not want to start asking them questions. Are you gay? Are you straight? Are you an immigrant? Are you a college student? Are you a Native American? If someone is bleeding on the floor, we help them in this country. That is what America is about. We see the compassion and the love every day in our country, and we saw it pour out in Aurora, CO, for an unspeakable situation. When there is violence, we have to help the victims. Only the Senate bill, the Senate Violence Against Women Act, the Leahy-Crapo bipartisan Senate bill, affords protection to all our people. So what we are saying to Speaker Boehner is: Please hear our plea. This is not about the Senate saying it is any better than the House. What we are saying is, in a bipartisan way, we figured out a bill that will protect everybody, and we are asking Members to pick up that bill and pass it. There are some technical issues--a blue-slip question. We have studied that. What did we find out? Those technical problems can be overcome in 5 seconds. So there is no reason why the House cannot pick up and pass the Senate bill. The safety of women across the country, the safety of all our communities, is at stake, and it is time we pass it. In closing, I would say this: Vice President Biden is a wonderful human being, and he could not sit back when he was in the Senate and see violence against women go on and on and on without any way to ensure that women could get into shelters, that women could get counseling, that law enforcement could be trained, that doctors could be trained, that nurses could be trained, and that we enhance the penalties for those who would harm another in a domestic violence situation. He had tremendous foresight. In this bill, Senator Leahy and Senator Crapo have amazing foresight because they have strengthened this. We have cut back domestic violence by 53 percent. But we have a long way to go when three women a day are killed--killed--by their abuser. Again, we have a very clear message for the House: Please join hands with us. Please, with all the politics and all the fighting and all the problems, there are certain times when we should reach out to one another and protect the American people. This is one of those times. We have the bill. It is bipartisan. It works. Please accept it, and let's get on with our work. Thank you very much. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am here to speak in favor of the Bring Jobs Home Act. I wish to thank my colleague Senator Stabenow of Michigan, who understands this issue because in her State of Michigan they almost lost the auto industry. They almost lost the auto industry. There were those who said: Let them go bankrupt. We know who those people are. We supported our President. We had a majority who did so. We had tough votes, and we said: We are not going to be the only industrialized country in the world to not have an auto industry. We looked at it as not only a jobs issue--clearly, it is a jobs issue--but we looked at it as a national security issue as well. What this bill is about, the Bring Jobs Home Act, is making sure we see the words ``Made in America'' again--we see the words ``Made in America''--so it is not a surprise when we see those words, but we say: That is right. It is made in America because we have the best workforce, the best entrepreneurs in the world, and we need the jobs here. What has happened over the years is that shipping jobs overseas became a trend and a lot of important voices were heard saying: That is just the way it is. It is not just the way it is. If we have policies in place that incentivize manufacturing and production here, we are not going to lose those jobs. But what happened during these years is that companies got a tax deduction for moving jobs overseas. Imagine that. We American taxpayers were subsidizing companies, giving them tax breaks for moving jobs overseas. The Bring Jobs Home Act ends those tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas. What we do instead is say: We will give a 20-percent tax credit to companies that move their jobs back from overseas. So they get a 20-percent tax credit for their moving expenses. So we stop giving tax incentives to companies that move jobs overseas, and we instead give tax incentives to those who bring them back. Let me tell you the good news. The good news is that there are some companies that are coming back home. I wish to highlight a couple companies in California. Simple Wave, a company that makes snack bowls from recycled materials, relocated its production to Union City, CA, from China. Simple Wave chose to complete its manufacturing in America because they said it saves time and allows for greater quality control and flexibility. A cofounder of Simple Wave, Rich Stump, said: Our business is growing very quickly and by having the ability to react quickly and provide just-in-time manufacturing will provide the fuel to our growth. Knowing that we are contributing to the US economy re-shoring effort is a great feeling-- Listen to that. This is a businessman who says: ``Knowing that we are contributing to the US economy re-shoring effort is a great feeling''-- and we are confident that this will in turn provide a better quality product to our customers. I say to my Republican colleagues--I do not know how they are going to vote, but they have not been very supportive of this bill--if a businessman feels great because he is bringing jobs home to the United States, why don't you feel great and do your part and take away tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas and give them to companies that bring jobs home? Here is another one. LightSaver Technologies, in Carlsbad, CA, makes emergency lighting for homes. They also moved their manufacturing back from China. They found that making adjustments to the manufacturing process is easier when the plant is only 30 miles away, as opposed to 12 time zones away. Jerry Anderson, one of the company's founders, said: If we have an issue in manufacturing, in America we can walk down to the plant floor. We can't do that in China. He says manufacturing in the U.S. is 2 to 5 percent cheaper once he takes into account the time and trouble of outsourcing jobs overseas. Again, I say to my friends, if entrepreneurs such as these feel good about bringing jobs home, why are you continuing to support subsidies to companies that move jobs overseas? We are coming out of a very tough recession--a very tough recession-- and we know we need to create jobs here at home. I truly wish to say to the people who may be watching this debate--if there are a few; I think there might be just a few--we have control over this. We know if we give incentives to companies to ship jobs overseas, their bottom line is going to be changed by that. But if we give incentives to companies to bring jobs back, their bottom line will look much better. So we have the opportunity with this important bill to move forward and turn things around. Do not believe when people say: Oh, it is just the way it is. We are just outsourcing. That is the global marketplace. That is it. If we take that attitude, the future is going to be pretty bleak. Because we do have the greatest workers in the world. They have the best productivity of any workers--the best. So why would we say: It is just the way it is. We need to fight for those jobs. We need to fight. We have to stand up to the people who say: It is just the way it is. It is just the way business is. When somebody tells us that kind of a simple statement, we should question it. It is the way it is for many reasons. One of them is, we are giving incentives right now to companies to ship jobs overseas. A Wall Street Journal survey found that some of our largest corporations cut 2.9 million U.S. jobs over the last decade from America, while hiring 2.4 million people overseas. So they cut jobs here, and they created jobs there. So when a politician says to you: I am for job creation, ask him, where. We want it here. We do not want it in other countries at the expense of American workers. We wish all countries well, but we have to take care of America. People talked about the uniforms at the Olympics, and some said: Oh, I am not going to get into that. That is not such a big deal. It is important. It is important we make a conscious effort for our athletes that they do have a ``Made in America'' label. Many of us have had the experience of using, as a fundraising tool, the sale of T-shirts or purses or shopping bags or hats. Yes, it takes an effort to find the right place to go, but those can be made in America. I say it takes a little effort for a good result. As Senator Reid said, we have people in the textile industry crying for work. So do not just brush it off as a nonissue. It is an important issue. In California, more than 3,400 jobs were lost to outsourcing this year alone--3,400. From 2000 to 2010, the United States lost 5.7 million manufacturing jobs. But it is not just manufacturing. Science and high-tech jobs, legal and financial services, business operations are being moved overseas as well. We all know we make those calls trying to find out something, whether it is an airline schedule or information on a product, and you get the sense the person is not talking to you from an American city. Why on Earth would we give incentives to have those jobs created elsewhere? That is what this bill is all about. With 12.7 million unemployed people and only 3.6 million jobs that we have open nationwide, we have to find ways to reverse this trend. I think Senator Stabenow has hit on a very good way to start with the bringing American jobs home act. It is so easy. We want to say to companies: We are for your bringing jobs back, to the extent that we will give you an actual tax credit for doing that. It is very key. So I hope we can come together across the lines that divide us, these artificial lines, and work together. We have done it on a few occasions. We did it on the highway bill. I am so pleased we were able to do it then. The Presiding Officer was very involved in that. It was not easy. This one is easy. The highway bill had 30 different programs in it. We are talking about a very simple premise: Right now we give tax breaks to companies who shift jobs overseas, and we want to end it. Enough. It is not complicated; it is easy. Why my Republican friends cannot join hands with us on this one I do not understand. But I have to say, we can do this for the American worker, whether they are from California or Ohio or Texas or Arizona or Maryland or Kentucky--wherever they may be. This is one we can do for the working people and the entrepreneurs of our Nation. So I congratulate Senator Stabenow. I look forward to voting in favor of the Bring Jobs Home Act. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the DISCLOSE Act. It is important for Americans to know where the money is coming from that supports the political ads appearing on their television screens during election season. This bill is a much needed response to the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United--a decision that is resulting in corporate money drowning out the voices of ordinary citizens. In Citizens United, the Supreme Court overruled decades of legal precedent when it decided that corporations cannot be restricted from spending unlimited amounts in Federal elections. The decision was astounding, not just because it was a display of judicial activism but also because it defies common sense for the Supreme Court to conclude that corporations or even labor organizations are citizens, as you or I am, in the eyes of the law. As Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in his dissent, ``corporations have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires . . . they are not themselves members of `We the People' by whom and for whom our Constitution was established.'' In the aftermath of the Citizens United decision, special interest groups known as super PACs with innocuous names like ``American Crossroads'' and ``Restore our Future'' are primed to spend hundreds of millions of dollars in the 2012 election. According to OpenSecrets.org, Super PACs have raised $246 million in secret money so far in the 2012 election cycle--and we still have 113 days until the election during which that total may double or even triple. The New York Times recently reported that secret groups have accounted for two-thirds of all political advertising spending this year. Unlike funds given directly to candidates and political parties, which get reported to the Federal Election Commission and are available for the public to review, funds given to super PACs are secret, leaving voters with no knowledge of who is behind attack ads against political candidates. Right now the rules require that individuals who give $200 or more to a candidate must submit detailed information about their identity, their address, and their occupation. But Citizens United says that if you give $2,000, $2 million, or $20 million to a super PAC, you don't have to disclose a thing. Former member of the Federal Election Commission Trevor Potter said individuals ``can still give the maximum $2,500 directly to the campaign--and then turn around and give $25 million to the Super PAC.'' At a minimum, voters in a democracy deserve to know who is financially supporting candidates for public office. Editorial boards in California and across the country recognize that disclosure and transparency are essential for the integrity of our democratic system. The Sacramento Bee writes that ``reasonable people can disagree on whether corporations should be able to donate to campaigns, or whether the size of donations should be capped. But there should be no debate about whether donations should be open and readily accessible to the public.'' The Los Angeles Times writes that ``there is no cogent argument against maximum disclosure. Nor is there any First Amendment argument for secrecy . . . If those who seek to influence elections don't have the courage of their convictions, Congress must act to identify them.'' The San Jose Mercury News writes that ``since the Supreme Court made it all but impossible to regulate corporate influence on campaigns, the only thing left is requiring swift and thorough disclosure.'' And that is exactly what the DISCLOSE Act does. It requires super PACs, corporations, and labor organizations that spend $10,000 or more for campaign purposes to file a disclosure report with the Federal Election Commission within 24 hours of the expenditure. The organization must also disclose the sources of all donations it receives in excess of $10,000. The disclosure must also include a certification that organization's spending is in no way coordinated with a candidate's campaign. These are carefully targeted reforms to ensure that the American people are informed during the electoral process. Outside spending on our elections has gotten out of control in the post-Citizens United world created by the Supreme Court. Sheldon Adelson, a casino magnate, who gave $20 million to a super PAC to prop up the Presidential campaign of Newt Gingrich, told Forbes Magazine: ``I'm against very wealthy people attempting to or influencing elections, but as long as it's doable, I'm going to do it.'' A super PAC affiliated with House Republican majority leader Eric Cantor raised $5.3 million in the third quarter this year. Adelson is responsible for providing $5 million of the total. The super PAC affiliated with Mitt Romney, ``Restore our Future,'' has raised $61 million so far. Most of this money came from just a handful of individuals. During the 2012 Florida GOP Presidential primary, Romney super PACs ran 12,000 ads in that state alone. A New York Times analysis of donations to Romney super PACs found sizeable amounts from companies with just a post office box as a headquarters, and no known employees. A USA Today analysis of GOP super PACs through February 2012 found that $1 out of every $4 donated to these Super PACs was given by five individuals. A US PIRG/Demos study found that 96 percent of super PAC contributions were at least $10,000 in size, quadruple the $2,500 donation limit individuals are allowed to give specific candidates. The Center for Responsive Politics found that the top 100 individual super PAC donors make up only 4 percent of the total contributors to super PACs, but they account for more than 80 percent of the total money raised. According to Politico, the Koch Brothers and their companies plan to spend $400 million on the 2012 election, which would be more than Senator John McCain raised during his entire 2008 run for President. A super PAC called ``Spirit of Democracy America'' spent $160,000 in support of a primary candidate in California's 8th Congressional District. The super PAC has no Web site and provided no details prior to the primary election to voters in the district about who was behind their expenditures. The super PAC accounted for 64 percent of all the outside money spent on the race. A 21-year-old Texas college student used a multimillion dollar inheritance from his grandfather to spend more than $500,000 on television ads and direct mail in a Kentucky congressional election, helping his handpicked candidate win the primary in an upset. The American people are tired of these stories, and they are tired of big money in politics. Overwhelmingly, and on a bipartisan basis, they support disclosure laws and contribution limits. Because of the massive influence super PACs are having on elections, earlier this month the USA Today issued a frightening prediction about this fall's election. They write that ``the inevitable result is that come November, voters in many closely contested races will make their decisions based on a late flood of ads of dubious credibility paid for by people whose names and motives are unknown.'' The American people deserve to have a government that is always of the people, by the people, and for the people. The DISCLOSE Act will help restore the voice of the people. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am honored to pay tribute to Jack Bookter for his 45 years of extraordinary service to the International Brotherhood of Teamsters in San Francisco. Throughout his career, Mr. Bookter has worked to ensure that the workers represented by his union have received just compensation under fair working conditions. After serving in the U.S. Navy and as a police officer in San Bruno, CA, Jack became a driver for United Parcel Service, UPS, where he also served as a shop steward who represented the interests of his fellow drivers. For the past 36 years, he has served as secretary treasurer for Teamsters Local 278, which later became Local 2785. Jack Bookter has also served as chairman of the UPS Western Region Grievance Panel and as a member of the policy committee representing the Teamsters Joint Council 7 at the California Teamsters Public Affairs Council. Mr. Bookter is part of a long and proud tradition of union leaders who fight to give workers and their families the rights and opportunities they need to achieve the American dream. I join Mr. Bookter's friends and colleagues in celebrating his career and much deserved retirement. I wish him well in this next chapter of his life, and I hope that he enjoys many more years of happiness with his wife Yvonne, as well as his daughters, Cathy, Jill, and Yvette.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Udall proceed for 6 minutes, that I proceed for 12 minutes, and that Senator Manchin proceed for 12 minutes.

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, was there any time remaining for Senator Udall?

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I rise to talk a little bit about health care and what it would mean if the Republicans get their way and take away so many benefits for millions of people. But before I do, I would like to respond to Senator Hutchison's remarks on taxes. President Obama has called on us to pass a tax cut for 98 percent of the American people. That would not be for millionaires, but for the middle class. It is not for billionaires, but for the middle class--98 percent. He said anyone earning up to $250,000 will get a tax break. As a matter of fact, he said all income under $250,000 will get a tax cut. Only income over $250,000 would go back to the tax rates of Bill Clinton. Let me remind everyone that in those years we had 23 million new jobs created and a balanced budget, and we never had more millionaires created in one period of time as we did then because it was a fair tax system. President Obama has asked us to give a tax break to everyone on the first $250,000 of their income and after that go back to the rates under Bill Clinton. That includes 97 percent of small business owners. When we hear the Republicans get up and say: Democrats want to hurt small businesses, Democrats want to hurt the job creators, our position is that 97 percent of small business owners agree with the President-- they should get a tax break. If you earn over that $250,000, which is a few percent, pay the fair share that we paid during the fabulous economic growth period when Bill Clinton was the President. Why do we feel it is important that we say 98 percent and not 100 percent of taxpayers? Because we have a deficit issue. We have a debt problem. We want to get back to the days of balanced budgets, and we will get there, if everyone pays their fair share. So let's be clear. All of those tears being shed on the other side are being shed for people such as Donald Trump. Isn't it unfortunate that a man such as Donald Trump, who was able to catch the dream to the ultimate--and all right, we want that for everyone--has to pay just a little bit more? At a time when people are taking their money out of this country and putting it in Swiss bank accounts and Bermuda accounts and accounts in the Cayman Islands, it is time for everyone to have a little patriotism here. We have to have the greatest country in this world, and that means the strongest military in the world; that means the best roads and bridges in the world; that means a strong education system. We want to wipe out cancer, AIDS, and Alzheimer's. That means a strong medical research system. We need everyone in America to do their part. My dad was a CPA. We were very middle class--lower middle class, I would say. I started working in little jobs when I was 16, 17, and I got mad. I hate to age myself, but the minimum wage was quite low then. It was in the cents. It was around 75 cents an hour or something. I remember saying, Why do I have to pay anything to the government? I don't want to pay anything. My father would say to me, You kiss the ground you walk on because you live in America, and we have to have things in this country to make us great. And don't you ever forget that, and don't you complain about it. He also said, You make sure it is spent right and you make sure you have a voice in it. But this country needs to be strong. So to have millionaires and billionaires take their money out of America and hide it in accounts in other countries is not something I would be proud of. We should invest our funds here and everyone should pay their fair share. Health Care Here is the deal. The Republicans have said if they take over all of the branches of government, which is their goal, on day one they are going to repeal ObamaCare. They are going to repeal our health care law. It reminds me of this: If I were to say to the Presiding Officer, meet me on the corner at 6 o'clock tonight and I am going to punch you in the nose, hit you over the head, and leave you there, she might rethink meeting me. She might say, you know, Barbara, that is not something to look forward to. Well, let me say this to the millions of Americans who are already receiving the benefits of ObamaCare, which I will describe: You are about to be hit over the head and punched in the nose, if the Republicans take over Washington, DC. That is their goal, to take over the Senate, take over the Presidency, and keep the majority in the House. Let me tell my colleagues why I say this. Here are the benefits that are in jeopardy--not in jeopardy from repeal; they will be repealed: Free preventive services which have already begun: Cancer screenings and immunizations for those people who have private insurance. Fifty- four million people are going to be punched in the nose and hit in the head, if the Republicans take over and they repeal health care--on day one. They are trying to do it today over in the House for the 31st time. Prescription drug discounts for seniors who are in the doughnut hole. Fifty-two million seniors have already saved $3.7 billion. They are going to be hit in the head and punched in the nose on day one--not even day two--of a Republican takeover. Free preventive services for seniors. We have 32.5 million Medicare patients who get free screenings now--32.5 million. That is almost as many people as live in California who will be hit in the head and punched in the nose on day one--not on day two or three, but right away. Protection against lifetime dollar limits. Right now, people think they have a good health care insurance plan. If a person gets, God forbid, something such as cancer and they have it checked out and find out the limit is $\1/2\ million, maybe $1 million, maybe even $2 million limit--they don't know how fast that limit comes and then they are out of insurance. So now 105 million Americans who had limits on their policies no longer have limits. Well, if the Republicans take over, punch in the nose, hit in the head, they are finished; they are out. Young adults who can now stay on their parents' plan up to age 26-- 6.6 million young adults--are out of luck on the first day of a Republican takeover. Let's go to the next chart. Limits on the amount of premiums health insurance companies can spend on administrative costs. Right now, 12 million Americans-plus are going to receive a total of $1 billion in rebates because, under ObamaCare, the insurance companies have to spend the money on patients--80 percent--not on their own perks, not on their bonuses, and people are going to get checks in the mail. So I say to these 12.7 million Americans: I hope you are listening, because on day one, no more rebates. Tax credits to help small businesses purchase health insurance. We hear about how the Democrats don't care about small business. How about this: The 360,000 small businesses who insure 2 million workers have gotten tax credits, right now--right now. We see the crocodile tears over there, yet they want to repeal a tax break that is helping 360,000 small businesses. If a child is born with a preexisting condition, let's say some heart defect, and that child can't get insurance. Today they can. Guess what. Seventeen million children benefit from this protection right now. Seventeen million of the most vulnerable people now have protection because of ObamaCare. But if the Republicans take over, these little babies are out--out of luck--and their parents will probably have to go on welfare. Great. Meet you on the corner, be there, vote for me, and I will punch you in the nose and hit you in the head. That is what is going on. Funding for new community health care centers and expansions. Already 3 million patients have been helped by this. The fact is we have seen funds go to these community health care centers in our communities, so whether a person has insurance or not, they can drop in to a health care center. It is particularly important in rural areas where they have very little access. I just talked about what happens already. Now, in 2014, we set up the health insurance exchanges so there is competition and people can get cheaper insurance. The preexisting condition benefit will then apply to everybody, so if you have a preexisting condition and you are an adult, you can still get health care. Women will get protection. Women have had to pay twice as much as a man for insurance. That is discrimination. That will be banned starting in 2014. There will be protection against arbitrary annual limits on the health care benefits people can get. Sometimes people have the ability to get health care coverage, but it is capped every year. No more artificial caps. Finally, we will say that health insurance plans have to cover essential benefits such as maternity care. Many plans will not cover maternity care. That is over. So then people say, Well, how is this reform paid for? The Republicans say taxes will go up, deficits will go up. The CBO has told us that this is actually a reducer of the deficit by tens of billions of dollars. As a matter of fact, it reduces the deficit by $127 billion over the next 10 years. How is it that ObamaCare saves money? It is because we invest in prevention. Everyone within the sound of my voice knows that if a woman gets an annual mammogram and it indicates a very tiny start of a breast tumor and the patient gets that tumor out at an early stage, they have avoided the worst consequences and it is way cheaper than waiting until the end when a patient needs radiation, chemotherapy, all of this tough medicine that is also expensive. I ask unanimous consent for 1 more minute.

Mrs. BOXER. Would the Senator yield for a unanimous consent regarding time?

Mrs. BOXER. How else do we pay for this? We cut out waste and fraud in Medicare. We say to the health care industry: You make a lot more money and you have to pay a little more, and they will. Then there are the free riders who say, I will never get sick, and if I do I will get free health care at the emergency room. We finally say to them, as they did in Massachusetts: Those days are over. If you can afford it, you need to get a basic policy. By the way, it is a tiny percentage of people. It is 1.4 million people. I think it is less than 1 percent of the people who will have to get insurance because the rest of us are paying $1,000 a year to cover these people. So no more free rides. We all work together. I will close with this. Watch out in this election who you vote for. If somebody tells you they are going to repeal health care, that means all of these benefits go out the window. All of this deficit cutting goes out the window. The Supreme Court said it is constitutional, and it is. I want to make this point: Don't vote for people who will punch you in the nose, hit you in the head, and walk away from you. I think the choice is between those who will lift people up and make life better for people and their families and those who would go back to a system that was so harmful for our families. Thank you very much, Madam President. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Berryessa Snow Mountain National Conservation Area Act. Congressman Mike Thompson recently introduced companion legislation to this bill in the House of Representatives, and I thank him for all of the work he has done on advancing this initiative. This important legislation designates 319,000 acres of public lands in Lake, Mendocino, Napa, and Yolo Counties as the Berryessa Snow Mountain National Conservation Area, or NCA. The area is a haven for hiking, camping, rafting, and horseback riding, and is home to a diverse array of wildlife including black bears and bald eagles. My bill does not add any new lands to the Federal Government--the lands included in this NCA are already managed by the Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the U.S. Forest Service. A National Conservation Area designation will require these three agencies to develop a multi-agency management plan in consultation with stakeholders and the public, improving coordination on wildlife preservation, habitat restoration, and recreational opportunities. Creation of the NCA will also help the agencies take a more coordinated approach to preventing and fighting wildfires, combating invasive species and water pollution, and stopping the spread of illegal marijuana growth. By unifying these individual places under one banner, my bill helps put the Berryessa Snow Mountain region on the map as a destination for new visitors. This region is one of the most biologically diverse, yet least known regions of California. By raising its profile, an NCA designation will boost tourism and increase business opportunities in the region's gateway communities. The Outdoor Industry Association has estimated that outdoor recreation supports 408,000 jobs and contributes $46 billion annually to California's economy, underscoring the immense potential of sites such as the proposed Berryessa Snow Mountain NCA to drive local economic growth. Additionally, the region will become recognized by more people as uniform signage and publications are created to reach more diverse audiences, allowing them to learn more about this beautiful area. Finally, this designation enables more people to share in the management of these wonderful resources through the creation of a public advisory committee. Local citizens, outdoor enthusiasts, business owners, and other stakeholders will be granted an official avenue to provide input on how to best care for these beautiful rivers, ridges, forests, canyons, and creeks, along with their diverse plant and wildlife species. Creation of this proposed National Conservation Area has strong support from a large coalition of local governments, elected officials, business owners, landowners, farmers, private individuals, and many conservation and recreation groups. This bill is the culmination of a grassroots effort of concerned citizens taking the initiative to care for the beautiful areas in their communities, and I am proud to support their work and commitment. I particularly applaud Tuleyome, a local nonprofit active in protecting wilderness and agriculture in the western Sacramento Valley and Inner Coast Range, for their leadership on this effort. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this important legislation. The Berryessa Snow Mountain region deserves national status and recognition, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this effort.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Berryessa Snow Mountain National Conservation Area Act. Congressman Mike Thompson recently introduced companion legislation to this bill in the House of Representatives, and I thank him for all of the work he has done on advancing this initiative. This important legislation designates 319,000 acres of public lands in Lake, Mendocino, Napa, and Yolo Counties as the Berryessa Snow Mountain National Conservation Area, or NCA. The area is a haven for hiking, camping, rafting, and horseback riding, and is home to a diverse array of wildlife including black bears and bald eagles. My bill does not add any new lands to the Federal Government--the lands included in this NCA are already managed by the Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the U.S. Forest Service. A National Conservation Area designation will require these three agencies to develop a multi-agency management plan in consultation with stakeholders and the public, improving coordination on wildlife preservation, habitat restoration, and recreational opportunities. Creation of the NCA will also help the agencies take a more coordinated approach to preventing and fighting wildfires, combating invasive species and water pollution, and stopping the spread of illegal marijuana growth. By unifying these individual places under one banner, my bill helps put the Berryessa Snow Mountain region on the map as a destination for new visitors. This region is one of the most biologically diverse, yet least known regions of California. By raising its profile, an NCA designation will boost tourism and increase business opportunities in the region's gateway communities. The Outdoor Industry Association has estimated that outdoor recreation supports 408,000 jobs and contributes $46 billion annually to California's economy, underscoring the immense potential of sites such as the proposed Berryessa Snow Mountain NCA to drive local economic growth. Additionally, the region will become recognized by more people as uniform signage and publications are created to reach more diverse audiences, allowing them to learn more about this beautiful area. Finally, this designation enables more people to share in the management of these wonderful resources through the creation of a public advisory committee. Local citizens, outdoor enthusiasts, business owners, and other stakeholders will be granted an official avenue to provide input on how to best care for these beautiful rivers, ridges, forests, canyons, and creeks, along with their diverse plant and wildlife species. Creation of this proposed National Conservation Area has strong support from a large coalition of local governments, elected officials, business owners, landowners, farmers, private individuals, and many conservation and recreation groups. This bill is the culmination of a grassroots effort of concerned citizens taking the initiative to care for the beautiful areas in their communities, and I am proud to support their work and commitment. I particularly applaud Tuleyome, a local nonprofit active in protecting wilderness and agriculture in the western Sacramento Valley and Inner Coast Range, for their leadership on this effort. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this important legislation. The Berryessa Snow Mountain region deserves national status and recognition, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this effort.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, and I will not object, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to have 20 minutes following my friend from Indiana.

Mrs. BOXER. Before the Senator from Indiana leaves the floor, I wish for him to know I listened very carefully and I know his concern. I have spoken with Senator Durbin about it, and I hope we can work together. I do want to say this process where sometimes bills are put together is frustrating to everybody, and we do need to take a look at the way we do things. However, I do have some measure of sympathy for the leadership around here because it takes so long to get any one piece done. So I do agree. I don't like the fact that we cast one vote and there are three subjects. It is very difficult for the people at home to understand it. I also want to say to my friend--before I yield 3 minutes of my time to Senator Sanders--to feel proud of the way we put together the Transportation bill. I think in that case, which is a huge policy bill, it was transparent and that what my friend complained about was something that was put in by the other body and said it is a must have. The truth is, up to that point, everything we have done was very much in the open, and I am very sorry my friend feels so negatively toward what we are about to do because in his State it is tens of thousands of jobs and in my State it is hundreds of thousands of jobs. It is thousands of businesses. It is going to mean a boost to this economy and a boost to the private sector. I wish to say to my friend, I understand his frustration, and I will do everything I can to help him on this issue.

Mrs. BOXER. I definitely share the frustration. At this time, I would like to yield 3 minutes of the remainder of my time to Senator Sanders.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I wish to thank my friend, Senator Sanders. He is a very active member of the Environmental and Public Works Committee. He is focused on jobs, jobs, jobs. He has looked at the green job sector. He has looked at the effect of what we do on the construction industry. I am ever so grateful to him. He also has been a very clear voice for the way to move this country forward by having a clean energy policy, which we are definitely going to be looking at in the days and weeks ahead. We are now at the moment where we are waiting to see whether our friends on the other side of the aisle will allow us to proceed to finish our work on three issues: One is flood control, one is helping to make sure student loan interest rates do not double, and the third and biggest one involves the transportation sector. We all know, whether we are Republicans or Democrats, our focus is on boosting this economy. This bill will do that like no other. In this Transportation bill we are talking about protecting 2 million jobs that are currently in place in this country in the construction sector and the transit sector. So these are the jobs that construction workers do on the highways, the freeways, the bridges, making sure our roads are in good shape and our bridges are not going to collapse because we have 70,000 bridges that are deficient, and we know what happens when there is a horrible failure of a bridge. I know my ranking Member, Senator Inhofe, feels very strongly about this because he had an incident in his State where one of his constituents was actually killed by a bridge failing. We cannot sit by and allow the highway program and the transit program in this country to disappear. We have taken it up to the line. I am very grateful to Ranking Member Inhofe. I am very grateful to Chairman Mica and to Ranking Member Rahall for the work we have done in this conference. This is a bill that everyone can be proud of, whether they are Republican or Democrat. CBO has scored this, and it actually returns money to the Treasury. We have support from people who don't agree on most matters. I am not only talking about Senator Inhofe and myself, who do not see eye to eye on many issues; we have come together on this. Besides that, we see the AFL-CIO and the Chamber of Commerce walking hand in hand asking us to please pass this bill. So we have a few little holdups now, but I am very hopeful we can work through them. The highlights of this bill: Overall, jobs, jobs, jobs. Jobs in the private sector, businesses in the private sector. We are talking about leveraging a Federal program called TIFIA, which is going to mean, frankly, hundreds of millions of dollars that will go out the door to leverage funds at the local level as well as the private sector. As we look at our bill, we see a reform bill. We see project deliveries speeded up from 15 years to 8 years without giving up the health and safety laws people deserve. We have not done away with any environmental law; we have just put deadlines in the law. We have put milestones in the law, and we have stated if people have a problem, let us know the problem and get on with it. If there is anything new--a new factor--we will look at that, but we cannot sit around and wait an average of 13, 12, 14, 15 years to get a project done. There are no riders in this bill. There are no environmental riders in this bill. I think that sends a good message to the public that we are focused on transportation. These other issues are going to be addressed, but they don't have to be addressed on this bill and become a target of a veto or a standoff between the parties. What did we do on bike paths? We have had a lot of controversy. People are saying we did away with the money for alternative transportation routes, or bike paths, called safe routes to school, called pedestrian walkways. No, we saved the same level of funding, the same percentage of funding, but we gave more flexibility to the States with their 50-percent share so if they have another pressing need they can use it for something else. Frankly, if the grassroots people at home are not happy with the State, they can let the State know that. For the first time, the other 50 percent goes to the local people. This is very important. We also have the RESTORE Act. This means those Gulf States that got hit so hard from the BP spill will be able to restore their areas. If they had economic damage, environmental damage, this will help. The money will come from the court settlement, and BP will then make those funds available. So it does not add a dime to the deficit. So we have a bill that doesn't add to the deficit. We have a bill that will boost this economy. We have a bill that is supported by conservatives and liberals, progressives and moderates. I think it is a great day. I am sorry there are a few issues that got added on that are disappointing to certain colleagues. Believe me, I want to work with them to help resolve those problems. But I have to tell my colleagues, when we write a bill of this scope, of this nature, we are going to have some of these issues. We will work on them. For my remaining time--how much time do I have remaining?

Mrs. BOXER. I wish to discuss the Supreme Court ruling. In a very fascinating ruling, the Chief Justice decided that the Affordable Care Act is constitutional. I am not going to spend a lot of time discussing why he said it and why they decided it. What I am going to talk about is what will happen if the Republicans have their way and this law is repealed. I want the American people to know--and I say this with no animosity at all--I am going to do everything I can to stop them from repealing it for a reason: The reason is the families in my State and all over the country who are getting the benefits of this law. Governor Romney says it is going to be something he is going to do on the first day--he is going to repeal the health care law, if he gets elected, day one. Let me tell my colleagues very clearly what will happen. There are 54 million Americans who are now getting access to free preventive services such as mammograms and immunizations, if they have private insurance. That is most of our people. They would no longer get free mammograms, free checkups--over and out. Fifty-four million Americans lose if Governor Romney and the Republicans repeal this bill--6 million of my people in California. My seniors, over 300,000, would no longer get help with their prescription drug benefits. Now they are getting help. They will then go back to choosing between taking their prescription drugs or eating dinner. I am sorry, I am going to stand in the way, if I can. Under Medicare, millions of seniors would lose access to free preventive services. Thirty-two million Medicare patients get these services for free, including cancer screenings and flu shots. Why on Earth would somebody or some party want to get up and say: I am repealing that? There are 105 million Americans who will once again face lifetime limits on their health insurance plans. If someone is diagnosed with cancer and they look at their plan, it says they are covered up to $250,000. That sounds like a lot of money. I can tell my colleagues now, that is not a lot of money for someone who is battling cancer. Now, suddenly, in a person's worst moments, when they are facing radiation and chemo, they have hit up against their lifetime limit. That will be gone. More than 6 million young adults, including 300,000 in my State, would lose their health insurance because now they have a guarantee. Because of the health care bill, they can stay on their parents' coverage until they are 26. Why would anyone want to repeal that? Ask them. They do. Insurance companies would no longer owe rebates to customers if those insurance companies spent too much on premiums and paid the CEOs exorbitant bonuses and paid hardly anything to help people with their health care. We are going to see 12 million Americans get back $1 billion in rebate checks in August. They will stop that. They want to stop that. How about millions of children who are now getting coverage because they have a preexisting condition. Before this law, they couldn't. So if a child was born with a heart defect, even if it was something that could be controlled, they couldn't get insurance. We pity those families. I have had reports of people in my State crying tears of joy when the Supreme Court acted because they could not get insurance because the woman--this particular one--had a preexisting condition, and now she can get insurance. Because of the work of Senator Sanders--and I helped him with it--we have community health care centers across the country getting funding. So if a person has no insurance--or even if they have insurance--they can go to a community health center and, based on their ability to pay, get health care. That would be repealed. School-based health centers would be repealed. Training of our health care workers would be repealed. I will tell my colleagues, that is just what the benefits are today. In 2014, there will be a slew of new benefits. This bill, while not perfect--and we can fix the problems--is a good bill. Just remember that everyone in our country gets health care, but the difference is some of them walk into an emergency room having paid nothing for a premium, even if they are wealthy, and they expect us to pay the bill in the emergency room. With the approach that Massachusetts Governor Romney took, he said if a person is responsible and can afford it, that person has to buy a minimal health insurance plan. President Obama got the idea from Governor Romney. I call it a personal responsibility premium. Some people call it a tax. Some people call it a fee. I call it a personal responsibility premium because most of the people I represent buy health care coverage, and a few just say: You know what. I feel terrific. I will wait until something bad happens to me and then I will go to the emergency room. And they can all pay. That is what we have. We have the people who are responsible paying for the free riders. The idea that President Obama got was from then- Governor Romney. So this is going to be a long election season, and there are going to be a lot of battles over health care. I hope we will pass the bill that is in front of us and take care of the construction sector and transportation. I hope we will take care of flood insurance and student loan interest rates. We can do that with one vote on a bill shortly, if we get permission to move forward. If we don't, we will be here all weekend or whatever it takes to get it done. I am not going to go home until this is done. I will also tell my colleagues--as we look at this health care battle, the lines are pretty clear. There are millions and millions of Americans who are getting benefits today. Why would anyone want to take away those benefits? Yet that is where we are in the debate. So I hope cooler heads will prevail. Let's get on with bringing this economy back. Let's allow this bill-- with a few corrections because we can always fix things that don't work--go forward. Let's stop the heated name calling. Let's make sure we work together, just as we did on the Transportation bill. I believe this is a good moment for this Senate today. I hope we can get our work done, and then we can actually celebrate something before we start battling over health care. Let's celebrate and say to the construction sector: We need you to rebuild those broken roads, those broken bridges. We need you to make sure we get those transit systems up and running. Then, I honestly believe, the rest of these problems we will take up one at a time. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, would my friend yield for 1 minute? I want to correct the Record. There are a few changes, there is no question. We have speeded up project delivery, as my friend knows. We gave a little more flexibility to the States in terms of the TE program. So a few things were changed. But my friends are right, primarily, this is a similar bill. It takes the money and we say we are going to spend the same thing, plus inflation. And it is true these bills have been out here for a long time. Actually, they passed our committee, I say to Senator Inhofe, in November of last year.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I understand the problems that my colleagues from Wyoming have with section 100125 of the conference report. I recognize that this provision was included in the conference report without their consultation. We will be working on a corrections bill in the coming weeks, and I intend to work with them to address this issue in that bill.

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

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, it has been a very long and winding road to get to this place. I am overwhelmed with the amazing vote we just had--the margin of success, the fact that this is the product that is not only bipartisan but bicameral. I understand that the House vote was equally lopsided in favor of passage. I think this sends a tremendous signal to the people of America, and that is that we can work together. Do not give up hope. When it comes to the well-being of our people, we must get together. I know the President must be smiling broadly because he has stated over and over how important it has been for us to pass a highway bill and to pass a reduction in student loan interest rate bill in order to help our people. I have said many times that what kept me going and so many others-- and I am going to name the various chairmen whom I worked with here and over on the House side and staff--what really kept us all going is the fact that we know how hard the construction sector has been hit in this recession. The housing crisis started this recession. It has not gotten better. It is slowly coming around, but new construction is going to take a while before all of the inventories are back in their appropriate place. What is going to help us? We could fill 10 Super Bowl stadiums with unemployed construction workers. We are looking at well over 1 million construction workers who are unemployed. Well, this was the answer. The transportation sector is hurting. The construction sector is hurting. And today we have sent a message, a powerful message that for 2 years and 3 months, we have funded a good bill that is going to employ up to 3 million workers and help thousands of businesses, and it is all in the private sector, the things that need to be done. We know we have 70,000 bridges that are deficient. We know we have 50 percent of our roads that are deficient. We know we have transit systems that need capital improvements. We know we have bike paths that need fixing and pedestrian walkways that need fixing. All of that has been resolved. Are there things in this package that I do not like? Absolutely. Are there things in this package my Republican counterparts do not like? Absolutely. We had to give. We had to take. We struggled. I am going to read into the Record the names of these staffers. This is an unbelievable list. I am going to do it quickly. I am going to say to these staffers from the various committees that they knew how important their work was. If we didn't succeed, there would be no more money in the highway trust fund, and all of the repairs on our roads would stop and the repairs on our bridges because everybody out there, since President Dwight Eisenhower was President, depends on the Federal share. We cannot have a strong economy without a strong infrastructure. Here are the names. I am not reading Democrats and then Republicans; I am reading the bipartisan list of staffers: Bettina Poirier, Ruth VanMark, David Napoliello, James O'Keeffe, Andrew Dohrmann, Murphie Barrett, Tyler Rushforth, Kyle Miller, Jason Albritton, Grant Cope, Mike Burke, Tom Lynch, Mark Hybner, Charles Brittingham, Alex Renjel, and Dimitri Karakitsos. I also thank the leadership staff. When things were looking glum, there they were. They are David Krone, Bill Dauster, and Bob Herbert. Here are the staff directors of the key committees who worked on this--remember, this was a four-committee process, including EPW, Banking, Commerce, and Finance. I thank Russ Sullivan, Dwight Fettig, Ellen Doneski and their extraordinary staff. They include Ryan Abrahams with the Finance Committee; Ian Jefferies, David Bonelli, Anna Laitin, and James Reid with the Commerce Committee; and Homer Carlisle with the Banking Committee. I also want to thank the Senate legislative counsel, Rachelle Celebreeze and Gary Endicott, whom I drove crazy yesterday by telling them to please produce the paper. This staff loved their work so much that I thought they would never end it. I had to beg them: Please finish because there will always be something more you can do. You can always find something better or put a comma in a different place. They wanted to make it as perfect as they could. There was a time when we just had to say, OK, we are done. They got it done. I am very moved of their dedication. I know my staff at EPW--for 3 days, the staff members, whose names I read--if they got 4 or 5 hours of sleep, they got a lot. They are running on empty right now. I tell them that their names will forever be in this record, and people they don't know will flourish because of their work when we start hiring people to do this infrastructure work. I thank my dear colleagues, Jay Rockefeller, Max Baucus, and Tim Johnson. No way could I have done it without them. I also pay tribute to Mary Landrieu, who is on the Senate floor today. Senator Landrieu and her State have gone through so many traumas--so many--with hurricanes and all of the attendant problems, and the BP oilspill, which did so much terrible damage to her State and the other Gulf States--environmental damage, commercial damage, broken hearts, broken spirits. Let me tell you, you never break Mary Landrieu's spirit. She teamed up with Senator Vitter, and they wrote the RESTORE Act. Then she went to all of the other colleagues of the gulf cost and said: You have to help me. They put together a great package. What it means--without going into detail; she will do that--is that when the court decision comes down and the funds come to the Federal Government for all the violations of law that took place with the BP spill, 80 percent of the funds will be directed to the very people who got hurt. Senator Landrieu, it is an honor and a privilege to work with you. You have been a model of a Senator who never, ever stops fighting. I am so grateful I was able to step to the plate and help you. I will add more names of colleagues, but I don't have time at this point. Others want to speak. This is a great moment. The bill we passed is a good bill. It is going to speed up project delivery without waiving any environmental laws that we keep the protections in and give a little more flexibility to the States on the alternative transportation routes. But, believe me, we also add a new piece that gives more power to the local people to decide on these projects. I am so pleased. I will add more statements to the Record later today. We have done this, and we are going to mark this moment. After we get our breath back and get our energy back, we are going to look at a long-term solution to the problem of the highway trust fund. We know the gas tax receipts are going down, and we have to solve the problem. If it wasn't for Senator Baucus and his staff, we never would be at this point because we didn't have the funding. They have to come up with it. I thank them and the Republicans on the committee. With that, I yield the floor, thanking one and all for this tremendous vote today.