Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, if I can respond?

Mrs. BOXER. What I said was, when these bills were introduced, they were directed at the Congress. That is what I said. I talked about the bills. I did not talk about what went on amending them, et cetera. I will repeat what I said was accurate. Both Mr. Brown's bill and Mrs. Gillibrand's bill were, in fact, talking about the Congress. What I would also like to say is if my colleague wants bipartisanship, she should be happy with this amendment since it is coming from Senators Boxer and Isakson, the chairman and the vice chairman of the Ethics Committee. We did not investigate the executive branch and Countrywide's going after the people in the Bush administration and the Obama administration. We do not have that information. If she has information that shows there have been sweetheart deals over there, I certainly want to know about it. As I said, if my colleague wants to offer a first-degree amendment that broadens this, I am happy to look at it. Because if it can be shown to me that there have been abuses over there, from the mortgage companies going after these folks over there, I am happy to agree to that. I would have to take it to Senator Isakson because he is, in fact, the coauthor. Also, I have to point out that this same amendment I offered was put forward in a bill by Senator Cornyn in 2008. So there is a lot of interest on this. I am a person who likes to know what I am talking about. I try very hard. I do not know if there has been abuse from the mortgage companies over to the executive branch. But I know for sure there has been a big problem here with colleagues getting sweetheart deals. I want to put an end to it. If my colleague wants to strengthen my amendment, she can offer a second-degree amendment. If she can prove to me that there has been abuse and there has been a problem and there is not enough protection, I am happy to support it. But I guess I am a little taken aback as I come here in a bipartisan spirit to offer a bipartisan amendment, I have kind of been the subject of some weird sort of attack for not going far enough with my amendment. I find it bizarre, to be totally frank, and I will continue to stay on the floor until I understand what this is all about. Maybe I have nothing to do with it. If I said something wrong, I would like to know what it is. But I am offering, in good faith, a bipartisan amendment that is a no-brainer, that comes straight out of the Countrywide scandal that we studied in a bipartisan way, in Congress, and we are moving to correct the problems we know exist. If there are more problems out there and if my friend has proof of that, if she can prove it to us, I am happy to support a first-degree amendment to this amendment. I yield the floor.

Ms. BOXER

Ms. BOXER. Mr. President, we can go back and forth 100 ways to Sunday. I thought I explained exactly why Senator Isakson and I have a narrow bill. We are trying to fix a problem we know exists. We feel very strongly that for the good of the Senate, in particular--because this is the body we serve in. We love it. We want to make it strong and appreciated and not derided. We had a scandal that touched this body and we had a thorough investigation. It took a long time to get to the bottom of it. We uncovered the fact that Countrywide had a sweetheart deal and they were aiming it at Members of Congress. We have crafted this amendment to respond to what we know is a problem. I am not in the business of coming down here and legislating on things that I might guess are a problem or, gee, maybe I can throw out a fishing net and catch everybody in it. If there is a problem elsewhere, I am happy to support my colleague if she would like to broaden this. I am not against it. I am saying for me and Senator Isakson, we have offered an amendment that cures a very simple problem; that ethics rules, as they are today, allow Senators and Members of Congress to avoid showing the mortgages they hold on personal residences. If the same thing exists in the executive branch, I don't know about that. I am dealing with an amendment here and so is Senator Isakson, that we know about. If the Senator asks again why our amendment is narrow, let me again answer it in another way: We are curing a narrow problem but a problem that exists. We are not throwing out some big fishing net to catch everybody in it whom we don't know about. We think this will make the Congress a better place. We do. Because there are Members who have two, three, four, and five homes. They may have two, three, four, and five mortgages, and we think it is important for the public to know that. But, again, I hope my colleague from Maine supports this. I don't know if she does. She doesn't oppose it. That is a good start. I hope she supports it. If she feels she can make it stronger, she should offer a first-degree amendment, let me take a look at it, let me see whether it is necessary, and let me see whether there is reason to do it. I can surely tell her I am very open to broadening it, but the reason it is crafted the way it is is that it is dealing with a problem we are not guessing exists; we know it exists where there have been abuses before and we are trying to cure that problem. I thank the Senator for her patience. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007, the ``Act'', calls for the Select Committee on Ethics of the U.S. Senate to issue an annual report not later than January 31 of each year providing information in certain categories describing its activities for the preceding year. Reported below is the information describing the committee's activities in 2011 in the categories set forth in the act: (1) The number of alleged violations of Senate rules received from any source, including the number raised by a Senator or staff of the Committee: 77. (In addition, 3 alleged violations from the previous year were carried into 2011.) (2) The number of alleged violations that were dismissed-- (A) For lack of subject matter jurisdiction or in which, even if the allegations in the complaint are true, no violation of Senate rules would exist: 58. (B) Because they failed to provide sufficient facts as to any material violation of the Senate rules beyond mere allegation or assertion: 14. (3) The number of alleged violations for which the Committee staff conducted a preliminary inquiry: 08. (This figure includes 3 matters from the previous year carried into 2011.) (4) The number of alleged violations for which the Committee staff conducted a preliminary inquiry that resulted in an adjudicatory review: 0. (5) The number of alleged violations for which the Committee staff conducted a preliminary inquiry and the Committee dismissed the matter for lack of substantial merit: 05. (This figure includes 2 matters from the previous year carried into 2011.) (6) The number of alleged violations for which the Committee staff conducted a preliminary inquiry and the Committee issued private or public letters of admonition: 0. (7) The number of matters resulting in a disciplinary sanction: 0. (8) Any other information deemed by the Committee to be appropriate to describe its activities in the previous year: In 2011, the Committee continued its preliminary inquiry into the conduct of Senator John Ensign. An outside Special Counsel was appointed to assist the Ethics Committee staff with its fact finding regarding whether Senator John Ensign violated Senate rules and federal law. As noted in the Report of the Preliminary Inquiry into the Matter of Senator John E. Ensign released by the Committee, the Special Counsel determined that there was substantial credible evidence that Senator Ensign engaged in violations of law and Senate rules. The Special Counsel concluded that the evidence that would have been presented in an adjudicatory hearing would have been substantial and sufficient to warrant the consideration of the sanction of expulsion had Senator Ensign not resigned. The Committee lost jurisdiction over Senator Ensign because he resigned his United States Senate seat. The Committee referred the matter to the U.S. Department of Justice and Federal Election Commission for further review. In 2011, the Committee staff conducted 6 new Member ethics training sessions; 14 employee code of conduct training sessions; 15 Member and committee office campaign briefings; 42 ethics seminars for Member DC offices, state offices and Senate committees; 3 private sector ethics briefings; and 8 international ethics briefings. In 2011, the Committee staff handled approximately 10,918 telephone inquiries and 1,745 inquiries by email for ethics advice and guidance. In 2011, the Committee wrote approximately 800 ethics advisory letters and responses including, but not limited to, 594 travel and gifts matters (Senate Rule 35) and 104 conflict of interest matters (Senate Rule 37). In 2011, the Committee issued 4,130 letters concerning financial disclosure filings by Senators, Senate staff and Senate candidates and reviewed 1,869 reports.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the life and artistry of Etta James, the legendary singer and entertainer who moved and delighted music lovers for more than half a century. She died in her hometown of Riverside, CA last week at the age of 73 after a long and valiant battle with leukemia. Born Jamesetta Hawkins in Los Angeles in 1938, she began singing in the St. Paul Baptist Church choir at age 5 and recorded her first hit record, ``The Wallflower (Roll With Me Henry),'' when she was just 15. Etta James was equally at home singing rhythm & blues classics like ``Something's Got a Hold on Me,'' soulful ballads such as ``All I Could Do Was Cry,'' and passionate love songs including the incomparable ``At Last.'' I was fortunate enough to grow up with her music, dancing to ``The Wallflower'' in high school, ``At Last'' as a newlywed, and ``Tell Mama'' as a young mother. As she continued to tour and record, later generations marveled at her talents, reveled in her exuberant performances, and admired her indomitable spirit. Through her music, Etta James brought the joys and sorrows of life home to millions of fans all over the world. She will be deeply missed, but her music will live on in our hearts and souls. On behalf of the people of California, I send my deepest condolences to her husband, Artis Mills; her two sons, Donto and Sametto James; and her four grandchildren.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the life of James ``Jim'' Capoot--a dedicated husband, proud father, loving son, devoted friend and respected colleague. Officer Capoot lost his life in the line of duty while serving the Vallejo Police Department on November 17, 2011. He was 45 years old. Jim Capoot was originally from Little Rock, AR, and served in the U.S. Marine Corps and as a California Highway Patrol Officer before joining the Vallejo Police Department in 1992. Officer Capoot was a highly decorated officer having received the Vallejo Police Department Officer of the Year award, the Medal of Merit, the Life Saving Medal, and twice awarded the Medal of Courage. In addition to his work with the Police Department, Officer Capoot was the volunteer coach of the Vallejo High School girls' basketball team and led the team to a section championship in 2010. Officer Jim Capoot, like all those who serve in law enforcement across California, put his life on the line to protect his community. I extend my deepest condolences to his loving wife Jennifer and three daughters. My thoughts and prayers are with them. We are forever indebted to him for his courage, service and sacrifice.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the memory of a dedicated public servant, Officer Mary Ann Donahou of the Stanislaus County Sheriff's Department. On the morning of December 30, 2011, while gathering evidence at a crime scene in Hughson, Officer Donahou was tragically killed after being struck by a vehicle. Officer Donahou was born in Ceres, CA. In 2002, she began her career at the Stanislaus County Sheriff's Office as a booking clerk in the county jail. As her knowledge and love of law enforcement grew, Officer Donahou eventually became a crime scene technician and dutifully served the citizens and communities of Stanislaus County with great commitment, integrity, and valor. Her devotion to helping others, along with her passion for law enforcement, enabled her to become a respected member of the Stanislaus County Sheriff's Department. Those who knew Officer Donahou will always remember her as a caring, kind, and devoted mother, colleague, and friend. She fulfilled her oath as an officer of the law with honor, bravery, and dedication. Her contributions to public safety and commitment to the citizens she served will never be forgotten and will be an example to others who hope to one day protect and serve the public. I extend my deepest condolences to Officer Donahou's son, Jake Lewis Hassler; her parents, Janice and Robert Pence and Jack and Mary Donahou; and her sisters, Jennifer Horne, Melinda Donahou-Sneed, Lori Donahou and Teresa Brockman. We shall always be grateful for Officer Donahou's heroic service and the sacrifices she made while serving the community and the people she loved. She will be dearly missed.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the life and legacy of Warren Hellman, a San Francisco financier, philanthropist, and community leader who died last month at age 77 from complications of leukemia. In addition to its spectacular beauty, the City of San Francisco is known around the world for its great heart and free spirit, its celebration of diversity, and its charm. In recent years, perhaps no San Franciscan has embodied his beloved city more than Warren Hellman. He was a fantastically successful businessman and investor who liked to dress casually, ride horses, run 100-mile races, and play bluegrass banjo. Here is how Warren was remembered by the Bay Citizen, the free newspaper he founded when he felt that local news coverage was in decline: A rugged iconoclast whose views on life rarely failed to surprise, Hellman was a lifelong Republican who supported labor unions, an investment banker whose greatest joy was playing songs of the working class in a bluegrass band, and a billionaire who wanted to pay more taxes and preferred the company of crooners and horsemen who shared his love of music and cross-country `ride and tie' racing. Warren Hellman was born in New York and raised in San Francisco. He graduated from the University of California, Berkeley and earned an MBA at Harvard Business School. After becoming the youngest director in the history of Lehman Brothers, Warren moved home to California and co- founded the private equity firm of Hellman & Friedman. Though he made a lot of money, he much preferred giving it away. Warren said that money was ``like manure: If you spread it around, good things will grow--and if you pile it up, it just smells bad.'' Among the many institutions Warren helped grow were the San Francisco Free Clinic, the Hellman Fellows Program at UC Berkeley, and his Hardly Strictly Bluegrass festival, where more than half a million people come each year to hear free concerts from top entertainers and from Warren's band, the Wronglers. He served as chairman and trustee emeritus of The San Francisco Foundation; advisory board member of the Walter A. Haas School of Business at UC Berkeley; trustee of the UC Berkeley Foundation; trustee emeritus of The Brookings Institution; board member of the Committee on JOBS; member of the Board of Directors and Executive Committee of the Jewish Community Federation; chairman of the Jewish Community Endowment Fund; board member of the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce and the Bay Area Council; and chairman of Voice of Dance. Warren also led many efforts to support civic initiatives in San Francisco, from the underground parking garage that saved two major museums in Golden Gate Park to the broad-based campaign to reform San Francisco's city employee pension system. On behalf of the people of California, who have benefitted so much from Warren Hellman's great generosity and public sprit, I send my deepest gratitude and condolences to his wife, Patricia Christina ``Chris'' Hellman; son Marco ``Mick'' Hellman; daughters Frances Hellman, Judith Hellman, and Patricia Hellman Gibbs; his sister, Nancy Hellman Bechtle; and his 12 grandchildren. Warren's passing is a great loss to his family, his friends, and the city he loved and served so well.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, on March 16th, two of the Nation's great theatrical talents will be recognized when my friends Lily Tomlin and Jane Wagner are added to the Palm Springs Walk of Stars. As we all know, Lily Tomlin is a dazzling star of stage, screen, and television. She first won the hearts of millions of Americans more than 40 years ago on ``Rowan and Martin's Laugh-In,'' where she created unforgettable characters such as the world famous telephone operator Ernestine and the precocious young child Edith Ann. Lily said of these characters, ``I don't necessarily admire them, but I do them all with love.'' From the beginning, audiences fell in love with Lily Tomlin. In 1971, Lily began working on an Edith Ann comedy album with a brilliant, award-winning young playwright named Jane Wagner. They produced acclaimed hit recordings and television specials and went on to further triumphs on Broadway and in Hollywood. It is fitting that Lily and Jane will be honored together on the Palm Springs Walk of Stars, not only because of their long personal and professional partnership, but because they have formed one of the most fruitful creative collaborations in the history of American performing arts. Over the past four decades, Jane Wagner has created unforgettable characters, and Lily has inhabited these characters and brought them fully to life. Since 1985, much of their creative energy has focused on various productions of Jane's play ``The Search for Signs of Intelligent Life in the Universe''. Through this timeless yet dynamic work of art--with insight, humor, and love for all that makes us human--these two extraordinary artists have expanded both the bounds of performance art and our understanding of the human condition. I have known Lily Tomlin and Jane Wagner for many years. I am pleased to call them my friends, and I will be honored to join the Palm Springs Walk of Stars next month in paying tribute to their tremendous contributions to the Palm Springs area and to American culture.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, this year the late Walter and Leonore Annenberg's legendary California estate, Sunnylands, will open its doors to the public as the Annenberg Retreat at Sunnylands. I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the Annenbergs' remarkable legacy and saluting the new institution's noble goals. Sunnylands was designed and built in the mid-1960s as the Annenbergs' desert home in Rancho Mirage. It served as their winter residence and as a tranquil retreat and meeting place for Presidents of the United States, U.S. Supreme Court Justices, scholars, historians, former diplomats, Governors, State legislators as well as bipartisan coalitions of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives. Among many other notable guests, President Nixon wrote his 1974 State of the Union speech there, and Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Charles visited in 1983. In 2001, the Annenberg Foundation Trust at Sunnylands was founded to continue Sunnylands' role as a conference center and retreat for national and international leaders to address the world's most pressing concerns. Throughout their lifetimes, Ambassador and Mrs. Annenberg hosted and sponsored a number of solution-driven retreats that fostered positive diplomatic, judicial, and legislative progress. Now, the new Annenberg Retreat at Sunnylands will be available for the President of the United States and the Secretary of State to bring together world leaders to promote and facilitate peaceful international agreements; for the President and the Cabinet, the Supreme Court, and the bipartisan leadership of the Congress to meet to focus on ways to improve the functioning of the three branches of government; and for leaders of major social institutions, such as universities, colleges, public schools, charities, and government agencies, to meet and determine how these institutions might better serve the public good. I invite all of my colleagues to join me in congratulating the Annenberg Retreat at Sunnylands for realizing the Annenbergs' dream of creating a world-class center that provides our leaders with an atmosphere to discuss vital issues, promote cooperation, and craft solutions for our Nation and the world.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I oppose the two balanced budget amendments before us. Senator Hatch's proposal would cap spending at 18 percent of gross domestic product, forcing deep cuts to Social Security and other critical programs. Senator Udall's alternative, while less extreme, is still not a proposal I can support. I have consistently opposed balanced budget amendment proposals because Congress doesn't need a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. We have done it before. In the 1990s, during President Clinton's term, we not only balanced the budget, but we created surpluses and 23 million new jobs. We cut wasteful spending, made smart investments, and ensured that everyone, including the wealthiest, paid their fair share. In 1993, we passed a budget plan without a single Republican vote. By 1998, the budget had come into balance, and as President Clinton was leaving office in 2001, budget analysts were predicting surpluses as far as the eye could see. Unfortunately, the Bush tax cuts and two wars put on a credit card created huge deficits. To get our country back on a path to fiscal responsibility, we don't need a balanced budget amendment. That is why the Senate has voted down balanced budget amendments many times--most recently in 1995, 1996, and 1997. Instead, we need the political will to come together and make responsible choices for our country's future. Many economists believe that balanced budget amendments are bad policy because they limit the ability of the Federal Government to respond during times of economic crisis and recession. Limiting our ability to make smart, job-creating investments is no way to set a foundation for our country's long-term economic growth. Finally, while these proposals include exceptions for times of war, there is no exception for natural disasters. A minority of Senators or Representatives could block Federal assistance for any disaster, no matter how severe. I urge my colleagues to join me in rejecting this balanced budget amendment and recommitting ourselves to our duty as a Congress to promote fiscal responsibility and economic growth.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am going to eventually make a unanimous consent request. We have alerted our Republican friends to it. But before I do, I want to set the stage for why I am going to eventually ask we be allowed to go to H.R. 3630, which is at the desk, and that there be a debate and a vote on the Republican-passed payroll tax cut. For the life of me, I don't understand why, as we approach the end of this year, Republicans do not want, right now, to have a vote on their own bill. Maybe it is because they do not have a lot of votes for it because it is a disaster. The President has spoken out very strongly for a payroll tax cut. We need that. It has been in effect, and if we don't extend it in this time of recovering from a deep dark recession, economists of all stripes have said we are going to see a reduction in economic growth. That is something we don't need right now. Initially, Republicans said they didn't want anything to do with this tax cut. They loved the tax cuts for the millionaires and billionaires. Oh, that one they have a heart for but this one, they don't really like. I think they took the heat back home, and good for the American people. They then decided they had to pass it because if they didn't pass it, working people were going to notice that $1,000 increase in their taxes. So we are facing a very odd situation. Having served in the House for 10 years--I had left before Newt Gingrich became Speaker; I ran for the Senate. I know how things work over there. I can almost see--though I have no accuracy on this; it is simply my own feeling--the mindset: The President wants this tax cut so badly, let's do it, but let's load this up with things he is not going to be able to abide. Frankly, that is what they did. Let's look at some of the things that are in this payroll tax cut. First of all, they added environmental riders. One of them I am very familiar with, and I want to spend a minute explaining. The EPA passed a rule to control the filthiest and dirtiest boiler operations. These boilers are located in our communities. They spew forth things you really don't want to know about, but we better know. They are things such as mercury, arsenic, and lead. All these things cause cancer, and all of these things are dangerous to all of us, particularly to children and to pregnant women. So the EPA has crafted a rule--listen to this--that only goes after 5,500 of the 1.6 million boilers. Again, these are the filthiest and the dirtiest. In crafting this rule, they had peer review science that showed this rule would prevent 8,100 premature deaths every single year. That is because we are talking about mercury, lead, and arsenic. These are not our friends. Now, not being able to abide by this, those in the House are standing with the dirtiest polluters, and they put a stop to that rule. To me, this is shocking, as chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee. If I saw you were driving a car in a certain direction, Mr. President, and I said to you, if you continue to drive your car in that direction, you are going to hurt people; you are actually going to be responsible for the deaths of 8,100 people in the course of a year, you would turn that car around. But, no, they are barreling forward. I am not even citing the stats--because I don't have them in my memory--on the number of missed workdays, the number of asthma cases, and the lost schooldays, but it is in the tens of thousands in a year. So they attached what I call a real poison pill to the payroll tax cut. But that wasn't enough. Despite the objections from the Republican Governor of Nebraska, they pushed forward on the tar sands pipeline before the studies were done. By the way, the environmental impact report was done by a company that had ties to the developer. So before we rush to judgment on this, colleagues, we need to have more information. But, no, they are going to jam that through. So those are two environmental riders that are in the bill that are very dangerous for the American people. So it is sort of like, here is $1,000 for you with the payroll tax cut, but we have just increased your risk of getting asthma or perhaps dying of cancer or a heart attack. Maybe that is why they object to having a vote on this bill. Now, in this bill, the way they pay for things is unbelievable. They are so fearful of hurting the upper income people--those earning over $1 million a year and paying for this payroll tax cut the way we do, with a small surtax on the millionaires and billionaires, which doesn't kick in until they get past the $1 million mark--they go after the middle class. They raise premiums on Medicare for 25 percent of Medicare recipients who earn $80,000 a year, and they raise it 15 percent for some of them in this time of recession. They cut the number of weeks an individual can get unemployment insurance, which also, at this time, is just plain cruel. They go after the salaries of middle-class workers, such as Federal firefighters, veterans, nurses, air traffic controllers, FBI agents, and all Federal employees while they allow government contractor employees to earn up to $700,000 a year. Senator Grassley is here, and I know he probably disagrees with some of what I said, but I know he agrees on the Federal contractor issue. In this particular bill, which the House crafted, I say to my friends, they go after middle-class workers, but the government contractor workers can earn up to $700,000 a year. To me, that is the only reason I can see why Republicans are objecting to having a vote on this so- called payroll tax bill--because it is so loaded with things that are going to hurt the American people. So I think we ought to have that vote and kill this Christmas turkey, because it is a turkey. It is harmful to the middle class. It is literally going to cause an increase in premature deaths, in asthma cases, and it is literally going to hurt middle-class workers while it leaves the millionaires and billionaires alone. What kind of value system is that? Merry Christmas to the middle class. No, it isn't. So, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of H.R. 3630, which was just received from the House; that there be 2 hours of debate equally divided between the two leaders or their designees prior to a vote on passage of the bill; that no amendments be in order prior to the vote; and that the vote on passage be subject to a 60-affirmative-vote threshold; further, if the bill is not passed, it remain the pending business and the majority leader be recognized.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague. We are buddies. We work together on a lot of good government issues. But the minority leader, the Republican leader, is objecting. So in summing this up, as I leave the floor, I would ask rhetorically, why on Earth the Republican leader is afraid to vote on a Republican bill, other than the fact that that bill, in my view, exposes a set of values that are not consistent with the American people. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, what is the time remaining in Senator Sanders' block?

Mrs. BOXER. Is the Senator satisfied if I take about 7 minutes?

Mrs. BOXER. I want to say how proud I am of the Environment and Public Works Committee. To be chairman of the committee that has such incredible Senators, such as those you have heard from--Senator Sanders, Senator Whitehouse; we also have Senator Cardin, Senator Carper, Senator Baucus, Senator Gillibrand, Senator Merkley, and Senator Lautenberg. I hope I am not leaving anyone out. These are the environmental voices, the commonsense voices for jobs, for clean technology, for a bright future for our Nation, so to be the chairman of that committee is an honor beyond my every expectation. It is not to say we don't work with Republicans; we do on public works matters. We work very well with Senator Inhofe and his team of Republicans on public works, but when it comes to the environment, there is nobody home over there. As a matter of fact, they do harm. Today I am going to talk about the need to create jobs through this sector, but I also want to say, while my colleagues are here, an interesting development that has happened on the payroll tax cut bill that the House is about to pass. We have a kind of inside-the-Beltway term when extraneous provisions are added to a bill that will bring down the bill, and we call that a poison pill amendment. I have never said to you when I coined that phrase ``poison pill'' amendment that it is literal. In this case they have attached to the payroll tax cut-- which is on the one hand giving a tax cut to the middle class--a literal poison pill by rolling back a Clean Air Act provision that will require a very small percent of the boilers in this country to cut back on the filthiest of all pollution, including mercury, arsenic, and lead. I will say that again: mercury, arsenic, and lead. If I were to stop anyone in the street, they don't need a degree in science to know if those are good things or bad things for you. They didn't even have to see the movie ``Arsenic and Old Lace'' to know that arsenic is bad. Lead damages the brains of our kids. Mercury has horrible impacts, particularly on children. So they have attached a poison pill, literally, because it will kill 8,100 more people than otherwise would have been killed from pollution. They have attached that to the payroll tax cut. How is that for a Christmas gift? Hi, I am your Senator, here is a tax cut for you of about $1,000, but, sorry, you might die from breathing in too much poison in the form of mercury, lead, and arsenic. That is what is going on here. Honestly, we have asked for a lot from Santa in our day, but we never asked for lead, arsenic, and mercury. The reason Senator Sanders took to the floor today--and the reason I am proud to be here--is because we all say here in this Chamber that we care about jobs. We all say here in this Chamber that we want to be energy independent. We should all add that we want less pollution. Our colleagues on the other side never mention it. We should add that we want less carbon pollution, which is leading us to extreme weather conditions, climate change, but they don't say that. We say that. How do you do it? Well, there are many ways. One is to enforce the clean air laws we have, by the way, that will help get carbon out of the air. But a very easy way as we extend this payroll tax cut, which we all want for our middle class, is to say we should extend those clean energy tax breaks that allow us to move toward innovation. You hear a lot of talk from the other side about how solar energy is in decline and they talk about Solyndra and the problems there. Let me tell you something, that mindset would mean we never would have made it to the Moon because we know what happened to Apollo 1. It was not good. We didn't walk away from going to the Moon. We expected there would be problems with the program that we put together. That is why we had $2 billion to offset any companies that might not make it. Do we stop cancer research because a lot of the scientists' leads don't pan out? We don't walk away from cancer research. But our friends on the other side, the minute they can seize on something to walk away from clean energy, they do. I have come to the conclusion that there is only one reason for it, and that reason is they represent--and this is my opinion--big oil, big polluters, the people who, over the years, have tried to stop us from moving away from those fossil fuels. All you have to do is read the history books to see how big oil teamed up with the auto industry to take out all the railroad tracks that they could to stop the competition. All you have to see is the movie ``Who Killed the Electric Car.'' You cannot even find those GM cars. They took them and literally flattened them and they bought time for the gas-guzzling cars until finally, with President Obama's leadership, we were able to influence the companies in Detroit to make them understand the very simple fact that if we move to cleaner burning fuels, if we move to fuel economy, they are going to make a lot more money because that is the future. What we face here instead of seeing an extension of the clean energy provisions to help us move toward solar, to help us move away from fossil fuels, to help us get a better balance of payments, to move away from the Middle East dictators, we see nothing. What do we see? We see another poison pill in another one of their bills over there to repeal the standards for light bulbs. What are these people thinking? They need a light bulb to go off in their own head. We have to move toward energy efficiency. It is a win-win-win. I am going to talk about California in my remaining time. We have seen great progress there. We have added 79,000 jobs in the clean energy sector in the past 7 years, and that clean energy sector remains one of the most promising industries in our State, and people are happy. We are going to put a million solar rooftops on in California. I know Senator Sanders has been calling for this for years. California is doing it with Governor Brown leading the way with the legislature. Do you know what that means? It means that people are going to work in California. You cannot be in China unless you have an extremely long arm and put a solar rooftop on in Los Angeles or in Riverside County or San Francisco or San Diego. So we need to reauthorize 1603, the Treasury grant program, which allows developers to receive a grant in lieu of a credit, in lieu of a writeoff. That means they will get the funding and they can move forward with their front. It is leveraged by $22 billion in private sector investment. If we extend the program, we will be creating 37,000 jobs. I have to ask rhetorically: What is wrong with the Republican Party that they don't understand that when you extend these kinds of tax credits, you move away from the dictators who control the oil supply and who would turn on us in a minute, and instead you create jobs here at home, the air is less polluted, the kids have less asthma? There are very few things that we could come to the floor and say are such a win-win-win. There is 48-C in the manufacturing tax credit, which provides a credit for facilities that make clean energy equipment components. We know there is a demand for these programs. I want to say to my colleagues on the other side who are on the EPW Committee, I hope they will join me at 2:30 p.m. We are going to have a press conference to talk about the need for protecting the air that we breathe and for the need to see a payroll tax cut that doesn't come over here loaded down with things that are going to lead to riders that are unrelated, that are going to lead to the death of our people. Simple message: No poison pills that poison the people, please. I hope they will join me there. But I want them to know, and I want to say, Senator Whitehouse organized a letter that was critical to get all of us on this letter. I ask Senator Whitehouse, through the Chair, how many signatures did you get?

Mrs. BOXER. That is a very large number of Senators to have put their names on a letter. These letters are hard. People are busy. They do not have time. You get 30 names on a letter, and we say: Extend these tax cuts for jobs, for the environment, for all the good things. I ask unanimous consent to have the letter Senator Whitehouse organized printed in the Record.

Mrs. BOXER. I would yield back to our leader on this important block of time. I would yield my time back to Senator Sanders. We are determined to get this done right for the American people.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I wish to express my strong support for the President's nomination of Richard Cordray to be the first Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, CFPB. Mr. Cordray is an exceptionally well-qualified nominee who deserves an up-or-down vote in the Senate. The opposition to this nomination has nothing to do with Mr. Cordray's credentials and is yet another attempt by Republicans to undermine the CFPB and stop it from cracking down on unscrupulous and fraudulent practices by big banks, credit card companies, payday lenders, and other financial firms. The CFPB was established as part of the Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation that overhauled our banking system. Before the financial crisis, no single agency coordinated Federal consumer protection. Banks and financial companies could choose their own regulator, which enabled them to avoid regulations with real teeth. The failure of Federal agencies to coordinate and the lack of any effective consumer watchdog agency allowed financial firms to pursue deceitful lending practices that hurt American families and caused the worst recession since the Great Depression. The CFPB was created to solve this problem and to make sure that financial markets work for all Americans, not just big business. The CFPB has already begun reviewing many areas of consumer protection law, including mortgage disclosure forms. It will enforce new rules for credit cards, require mortgage servicers to better assist homeowners in avoiding foreclosure, and enforce new rules on bank overdraft fees. President Obama appointed Elizabeth Warren, a respected law professor and dedicated consumer advocate, to set up the CFPB. Elizabeth Warren was selected for her long history of independent, unflinching consumer advocacy, and under her leadership the CFPB had a running start. But Republicans adamantly opposed her as CFPB director, before she had even been nominated. They knew she would crack down on abusive practices in the banking and credit card industries. And they know that by law, the CFPB cannot exercise its full authority without a confirmed Director. That is why 44 Republican Senators signed a letter promising to oppose any nominee, of any party, until their demands to cut back the agency's power and independence are met. Mr. Cordray would be an outstanding leader of the CFPB. He currently leads the CFPB's Enforcement Division. He has built his career around protecting the public interest, reflecting his commitment to consumers and his dedication to fairness. After having been a State Representative, Solicitor General and Treasurer in the State of Ohio, Mr. Cordray was elected Attorney General of Ohio in 2008. In this role, he prosecuted fraudulent foreclosures and predatory lending, and recovered more than $2 billion for Ohio's retirees, investors, and business owners. Mr. Cordray's nomination has broad, bipartisan support. Attorneys General from 37 States, representing both political parties, signed a letter in support of this nomination, calling him ``both brilliant and balanced,'' with a ``superior knowledge of the financial services marketplace.'' Sixty-one mayors from around the country, led by Mayor Villaraigosa of Los Angeles, also wrote to support his confirmation. The California Reinvestment Coalition, Center for Responsible Lending, Consumers Union, Main Street Alliance, NAACP, National Association of Consumer Advocates, AFL-CIO, AFCSME, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, SEIU, UAW, and UFCW have all expressed support for Mr. Cordray, and for confirming a director so that the CFPB can operate as intended. It is stunning that Republicans continue to block any effort to rein in the type of reckless and abusive behavior that caused the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, last weekend California and the Nation lost one of our great environmental champions when Elden Hughes died at his desert home in Joshua Tree, CA, at age 80. As a longtime activist with the Sierra Club and former president of its Angeles Chapter, Elden led successful campaigns to protect California's wild rivers and preserve the historic Union Pacific Railroad depot in the desert town of Kelso, CA. But Elden Hughes is best known and fondly remembered as one of the tireless leaders of the long grassroots effort to enact the 1994 California Desert Protection Act, which created a new national park in the Eastern Mojave Desert and established higher levels of protection for Death Valley, Joshua Tree, and other desert lands. Elden was born in 1931 in Whittier, CA, the son of cattle farmers from Modoc County. When he was 13, the family moved out of town and bought a ranch where Elden made enough money raising hogs to buy an old car and begin a lifetime of exploring California's wild places. After earning his way through college, he worked in the family plumbing supply business, which he then sold to become the executive vice president of a major computer service company. Elden's interest in river-running, spelunking, archaeology, nature photography, and the desert led him to join Sierra Club expeditions and gradually become involved in the club's conservation activities. In the early 1980s, he led a grassroots letter-writing campaign that convinced California Senator Pete Wilson to sponsor ``wild and scenic'' designation for a major stretch of the Tuolumne River. In the late 1980s, Elden led the successful ``three rivers campaign'' that obtained wild and scenic designations for portions of the Kings, Kern, and Merced Rivers. Elden worked with Congressman Jerry Lewis to save the historic Kelso Depot, in what was then the Eastern Mojave National Scenic Area. Showing their usual flair and creativity, Elvin and his wife Patty galvanized public opinion on the depot issue by convincing Amtrak to run a special ``Desert Wind'' train from Los Angeles to Kelso, where Elden led the crowd in singing railroad songs. In 1986, as the new chair of the Sierra Club Angeles Chapter, Elden was invited to attend a press conference on the introduction of the first Desert Bill, authored by Senator Alan Cranston. He brought along some of his photos of the Mojave and was soon leading a group of amateur photographers on a 2-year project cataloguing the fragile beauty of this unique natural area. In 1990, Elden retired from business to become the west coast spokesman for the Desert Bill. He was a natural, and the media loved him. As Frank Wheat noted in his book ``California Desert Miracle,'' Elden was also ``knowledgeable, quotable, pleasant to be with, and willing to go to great lengths to show members of the press what the Desert Bill was intended to protect. Soon he was drawing reporters as a lamp draws moths.'' Meanwhile, Elden and Patty had adopted a pair of abandoned pet tortoises and successfully bred a new family. When the babies were 5 months old, Elden and Patty took them on a cross-country tour to raise media and public interest in protecting the desert tortoise. Over the years, they made nine trips to Washington, DC, to gain congressional support for the Desert Bill. Once, when an airline security guard told them they couldn't bring pet tortoises on the plane, Patty said, ``They aren't pets, they're lobbyists.'' Finally, in 1994, Congress passed the California Desert Protection Act, and I was proud to cosponsor this bill with Senator Feinstein. Elden Hughes was instrumental in passing this landmark legislation. Today, the Mojave National Preserve and the Kelso Depot stand as monuments to this joyous, creative, and inexhaustible man who did so much to protect California's priceless natural heritage. On behalf of the people of California, who have benefitted so much from Elden's life work, I send my deepest gratitude and condolences to his wife Patty; his sons, Mark, Paul, and Charles; and his three grandchildren.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I wish to express my support for Caitlin Halligan, who has been nominated to the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. Ms. Halligan has an impressive background and broad support, and I urge my colleagues to vote for cloture and allow this nominee to receive an up-or-down confirmation vote. Ms. Halligan has had a distinguished career in both the private and public sectors. She has served as the solicitor general of New York and as general counsel of the New York County District Attorney's Office. She has also been a senior appellate lawyer at the nationally recognized law firm of Weil Gotshal. She has argued five cases before the Supreme Court, where she also clerked after law school. It is no wonder the ABA unanimously rated her ``well-qualified''--the highest ranking to serve on the DC Circuit. In addition to impressive credentials, Ms. Halligan has broad support. The National District Attorneys Association and district attorneys from the State of New York, including Republicans Derek Champagne, Daniel Donovan, and William Fitzpatrick, support her nomination. She is also supported by the New York Association of Chiefs of Police and the New York State Sheriff's Association. Confirming a well-qualified nominee like Ms. Halligan would also be another step toward expanding the diversity of our Federal bench. Today, women hold 30 percent of Federal judicial seats--from district courts to the Supreme Court--the most at any time in this Nation's history. While this progress is to be celebrated, these words from Justice Sandra Day O'Connor remind us there is more to do: About half of all law graduates today are women, and we have a tremendous number of qualified women in the country who are serving as lawyers. So they ought to be represented on the Court. I am proud to support the nomination of Ms. Halligan and hope that my colleagues will join me in voting for cloture today.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Is it necessary to lay aside the pending amendment so I may engage in a colloquy?

Mrs. BOXER. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mrs. BOXER. Senator Levin and Senator McCain, I wish to thank you very much. Before we engage in a colloquy, I simply want to show one chart which tells a story as to why Senator Grassley and I are so pleased the Senators are willing to accept this by voice vote. If I could ask Senator Levin to take a peek at this because I think this tells the story. This is what our military leadership makes, about $200,000. This is what the President of the United States as the Commander in Chief makes every year. This is what we have limited, and that was a reform, the top five defense contractors to--almost $700,000. But all the rest of the contract employees have absolutely no limit and can make $1 million a year. This is from the taxpayers. Senator Grassley and I feel, particularly in these times, but just as a matter of equity, we can fix it. We are very grateful to the two Senators for their willingness. So I would like to enter into a colloquy with Chairman Levin and, of course through him, Ranking Member McCain. I greatly appreciate their willingness to accept the Boxer-Grassley amendment No. 1206 that limits contractor employees' salaries to no more than the salary of the Commander in Chief, who is, of course, the President of the United States.

Mrs. BOXER. That is a good question. We would be well below. We would be about here.