Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, this amendment is not about taking funds from beautification and putting them into bridges. As a matter of fact, what this amendment does is it prohibits any bridge that is a historic bridge from being fixed, and there are thousands of those bridges all over this great Nation, including the Brooklyn Bridge. Second, it would tell our States they can't use these TIGR funds for things they want. I know my colleague thinks it is beautification to have a pedestrian or a bicycle path built. The fact is, 13 percent of traffic fatalities nationwide occur because we don't have these safety improvements. There were 47,000 pedestrians killed between 2000 and 2009. That is the equivalent of a jumbo jet crashing every month. So this isn't about taking money for beautification. Senator Inhofe and I have worked very closely to make sure we are not frivolous in what we fund. Please vote this down. We have voted down a similar amendment before.

Mrs. BOXER. This amendment affects the ability of people with asthma to purchase an inhaler that works, and the American Lung Association opposes this amendment. The American Thoracic Society, which is the expert--these are the experts on anything to do with respiratory diseases. There are 150,000 doctors who oppose this amendment. I am perplexed by it because the reason we want to get away from these CFCs is because Ronald Reagan signed the treaty to do away with them and George W. Bush passed the rule to do away with them. On behalf of the people who depend on inhalers that work right, that don't use CFCs, I hope we will stand with the Lung Association and the 150,000 doctors of the Thoracic Society. I hope we will vote this down.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I rise in support of John Bryson of California, President Obama's nominee to be Secretary of Commerce. Mr. Bryson will bring a wealth of experience in both the private sector and the public sector to this very important job of Commerce Secretary. Lord knows, we are in a recession and we are fighting hard to get out of it. We need a Commerce Secretary, and we need someone who understands the private sector and the public sector and we have that in John Bryson. In the 1970s and 1980s, he served as the chairman of the California Water Resources Board and as the chairman of the California Public Utilities Commission. There, he helped California navigate droughts, oil shortages, and other crises during a critical period in my State's history. For more than 20 years, Mr. Bryson has utilized his talents in the private sector, first as chairman and CEO of Southern California Edison, and later as chairman and CEO of Edison International. Mr. Bryson has also served on the boards of many companies, both large and small, and he will bring to the job of Commerce Secretary a unique expertise on what it takes for businesses to grow and expand. Mr. Bryson's top priority is job creation. As Commerce Secretary, he will be working closely with the President to meet the goal of doubling our Nation's exports by 2015 and creating hundreds of thousands of new jobs right here in the United States. He will be working with the private sector to drive innovation and economic growth, and he will be working to make the United States a leader in the clean energy economy. At Edison International, Mr. Bryson helped California become a hub for clean energy development and clean energy jobs by making investments in those renewable technologies. He understands new clean energy technologies will create millions of jobs here at home and that the Nation that rises to this challenge will lead the world because the whole world is looking for these kinds of technologies. I think Mr. Bryson comes to us with varied experiences which will serve us well and will serve President Obama well. Mr. Bryson's nomination has been applauded by all sides of the political spectrum, from environmentalists to business interests. Tom Donohue of the Chamber of Commerce praised Mr. Bryson's ``extensive knowledge of the private sector and years of experience successfully running a major company.'' The Business Roundtable called Mr. Bryson ``a proven, well-respected executive who will bring his private sector experience to the Commerce Department's broad portfolio that includes technology, trade, intellectual property and exports, which will be crucial to expanding our economy and creating jobs.'' The Natural Resources Defense Council, which Mr. Bryson helped found in the 1970s, called him: . . . a visionary leader in promoting a clean environment and a strong economy. He has compiled an exemplary record in public service and in business that underscores the strong linkage between economic and environmental progress. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an editorial from the Los Angeles Times, titled ``Commerce Department nominee deserves the job.''

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

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, Mr. Bryson's unique background will serve him well as he works with President Obama, the Senate, and the House to create jobs. I applaud our President for choosing such a well- qualified, experienced individual to be Commerce Secretary, and I want to thank Chairman Rockefeller and Ranking Member Hutchison for working together so we could get to this vote today. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

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

Mrs. BOXER

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

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, the Transportation Enhancements Program that the McCain amendment would essentially cripple was established in 1991 in a bipartisan transportation bill signed by President George H.W. Bush, and it has been continued in subsequent bipartisan transportation bills which passed in 1998 and 2005. This program benefits all Americans by making significant investments in safety, helping to reduce congestion, expanding transportation choices, and it strengthens local economies, provides jobs, protects the environment. This amendment eliminates seven of the activities eligible under the Transportation Enhancements Program, and it prevents any funds from being spent on those activities. Here is the thing about the TE Program, the Transportation Enhancements Program: There are things in it we need to reform. Senator Inhofe and I, along with Senator Vitter and Senator Baucus, are working very hard, and we have a bill, a bipartisan bill. The Acting President pro tempore is a proud member of our committee. We are going to mark up that bill very soon. Yes, it needs reform. But this amendment takes a meat ax to a very important program, and it would have far-reaching and unintended consequences. By prohibiting any funds to be used on these activities that Senator McCain has singled out, this amendment actually eliminates the flexibility of our States and prevents them from spending funds on activities which are necessary to construct and maintain our highway system. So even setting aside the loss of jobs that would incur as a result of the McCain amendment, let me tell you the other unintended consequences. But maybe Senator McCain intended that there would be fewer jobs. But I am assuming he did not intend, for example, this kind of a situation. In the case of historic bridges, a bridge could be deficient, but under this amendment we could not fund a rehabilitation project because the bridge is historic. Because he says we cannot spend any money on historic sites, a regular fix to a bridge that happens to be historic would not take place. I just happened to have finished a book I strongly recommend: ``The Great Bridge: The Epic Story of the Building of the Brooklyn Bridge.'' What a story David McCullough tells. That bridge was built in the 1800s. It is historic. Under the McCain amendment, they could no longer get funds. That is the unintended consequence because it is historic. So even though it is probably one of the heaviest traveled bridges--and the Acting President pro tempore could attest to that--in our Nation, imagine this amendment which would not allow bridges such as this to get funded. It is a poorly drafted amendment. I do not know, maybe this was intended. I cannot imagine it was intended, but this is the truth. This is what would happen. We also have in this amendment a prohibition on the use of funds for landscaping, which is necessary to complete any Federal aid highway project in order to prevent erosion along a highway. So I happen to be a person who believes, when we do a project, it ought to look good, it ought to make people feel good. Landscaping is important and it creates jobs and it cleans the air. OK. But setting all that aside, it is a safety question because a lot of times those plants will hold the soil in place and stop erosion when we have strong and heavy rains. Yesterday, our friend from Alaska, Senator Begich, mentioned the Seward Highway outside Anchorage and how scenic overlooks were added to provide a safe place for tourists to pull over. Under the McCain amendment, as I understand it, we could not spend money on scenic outlooks. But let me tell you, in the case of this particular scenic outlook, it was necessary for safety because people were so inspired, before the scenic outlook, they would just pull over in a dangerous way, have no place to go, and it was not good for safety. I wish to talk about the Transportation Enhancements Program in Senator McCain's State of Arizona. The demand is so strong from Arizona for these funds that Arizona submitted three times what they were actually able to get under the Transportation Enhancements Program. For example, in 2006, 72 applications requested $31 million in local project TE funding, but only $11 million was awarded to 24 projects. In Safford, AZ, TE funds are being used to improve five intersections and the surrounding streetscapes along Main Street to provide safer means of travel for pedestrians. According to the city of Safford, in Arizona, this project provides a viable transportation component dedicated to pedestrian safety within the increased vehicle traffic on Main Street. This downtown project to improve safety, mobility, and commerce was supported by the town of Thatcher, the Safford Downtown Association, and the Graham County Chamber of Commerce. Again, we have a situation where I believe this amendment has very adverse consequences to our local people, to our States. Right now, the way TE is in our bill--the old bill--it is up to the States whether they want to do this. No one can force them to spend the money on this. They have the flexibility. So now seven ways of using these funds would be taken away from the States. Let's be clear on it. This is a State decision how they spend this money. They do not have to take this money. They make the decision themselves. This amendment would take away that ability. There is also a prohibition on controlling outdoor advertising in the McCain amendment. That means if a State wanted to remove outdoor advertising, they could not use any Federal funds to do it, and they could not effectively control their advertising, which is required under current law. Again, they are supposed to control outdoor advertising, but the funds would not get to them to do that. I think if we ask the average person, they want their local people to have control over these things. So we need to defeat the McCain amendment or table the McCain amendment. My friend from Arizona also is telling us that 10 percent of surface transportation funding goes to transportation enhancements. That is not correct. The Transportation Enhancements Program represents a tiny fraction of the Federal highway program--about 2 percent--not 10 percent, as my colleague John McCain said. Furthermore, the seven activities prohibited by the amendment have represented less than 1 percent of the entire Federal highway program. This amendment is making a dramatic and sweeping policy change in what should otherwise be a clean appropriations bill. It represents an issue we have been discussing at the EPW Committee for quite some time in the context of a multiyear surface transportation reauthorization bill, which, as I said at the outset, is the proper vehicle for such a policy change. I thought we had decided as a Senate--Republicans and Democrats--we should not legislate on these bills. Senator McCain does not like seven things in the Transportation Enhancements Program. Maybe I do not like two things or Senator Gillibrand may not like four things. It is not up to one colleague to stand here and decide, without any hearings or any discussion, what they do not like in a particular bill. I do not think that is the way we should legislate, especially since the TE Program is run by the States. We make the funds available. They decide whether they want the funds for those activities. They do not have to do it. They do not have to take the funds. They do not have to do any of the eligible projects. So it, at the moment, has a lot of flexibility built in. As we reform in the next bill, we will look at some of the areas where we think we can make this a better program. Believe me when I tell you that Senator Inhofe and I have been working very closely on this, along with Senator Vitter and Senator Baucus. So we think we are going to have a very good reformed TE Program. This is not the place to change a program that our States like. They like it because it is flexible. They like it because it has a number of ways they can use the funding. So we are going to have a bill. It is called MAP-21, which stands for Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century. It is going to have a lot of reforms in it. It is going to consolidate a lot of programs. It is going to be a bill most of us can embrace and be happy with. It is going to have a reform TE Program, and that is the way to do this. There will be significant reform. But it is not right, in my view--and we will see how the vote goes--for one Senator to say: I do not like seven things that are in this potpourri of things we can use TE for, so I am saying we cannot do it. We cannot use the funds. It is just not right, and I pointed out how this is worded in such a fashion that bridges such as the Brooklyn Bridge and other historic bridges could lose all their funding as a result of the way this is drafted. So let's turn away from this McCain amendment. We know what works around here. What works around here is bipartisan cooperation, coordination. I see the Senator from Texas, Mrs. Hutchison, in the Chamber. She works so closely with Senator Rockefeller, and I will tell you what that means. It means we have wonderful progress in the Commerce Committee, which we would never have. Senator Inhofe and I work very closely in the EPW Committee. Everyone kind of smiles about it because they know on the environment side we do not work closely. That is true. We know that. He thinks global warming is the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people. I think it is happening. It is real. So we know we do not see eye to eye on that, and we have decided that is just a fact. So we do not engage in long arguments about it. We pursue our agendas, and we try to get the votes. But on infrastructure, he is one of the most conservative, I am one of the most liberal Members here. The fact is, there is no daylight between us on infrastructure because he believes that is one of the major functions of our government and I do, too, and it makes a lot of sense. I want to note the McCain amendment is opposed by the National Association of Counties, the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials, the National League of Cities, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, and the U.S. Travel Association. America does not support this amendment. This is a group of bipartisan organizations. When you look at the National Association of Counties, I started as a county supervisor. You have Republicans, Democrats, Independents, everything in between. Highway Transportation Officials is completely nonpartisan. National League of Cities, we have Republicans and Democratic mayors and councils; National Trust for Historic Preservation, again a mixture of different views. And the U.S. Travel Association. I mean, I do not know how that breaks down, but it certainly is a bipartisan group. Please, I hope people will turn away from the McCain amendment. It is not good for jobs. It is going to hurt jobs. It is going to have the unintended consequences of not allowing us to fix some of our most deficient bridges. It goes against the people we are supposed to represent here, the people out there on the ground: our county officials, our State highway transportation officials, our city officials, and those who work so hard to preserve the history of this greatest Nation in the world. We cannot turn our backs on historic preservation. Otherwise we do not know what our past was. I cannot tell you how many mistakes were made in California where in the early years we did not realize what we were losing. What people would give back to get back some of those old courthouses that were torn down--I cannot tell you--from the 1800s. And they could have been fixed up. But people did not have the foresight. This McCain amendment would do real damage. The U.S. Travel Association, you know, we are talking here about small businesses. We are talking about people who work in recreation, in airline travel. They do not want to see this happen, this McCain amendment. So I am assuming Senator McCain will be here. We have reserved the last 10 minutes before noon. At this point I think I have said all I can say to persuade my colleagues, who I hope are listening in their offices, that they should turn away from the McCain amendment. I yield the floor and I would suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I am happy to yield my 5 minutes to Senator Inhofe at the appropriate point.

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the final 10 minutes of debate prior to noon on the McCain amendment No. 739 be equally divided between Senator McCain and myself or our designees.

Mrs. BOXER. To lead us off on this very important amendment and to explain why it is important to not support the McCain amendment is a senior member of the Environment and Public Works Committee and a great member of that committee and a great supporter of the environment and transportation, Senator Cardin of Maryland. I yield him 6 minutes.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, could we have order?

Mrs. BOXER. The reason I asked for order is because this amendment affects each and every one of you and your constituents. The McCain amendment says to the States that they cannot use a certain section of the transportation bill for several things, including scenic or historic highway programs, including tourist centers, landscaping, or scenic beautification, historic preservation, and it goes on. The point I want to make is this amendment is opposed by the National Association of Counties, the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials, the National League of Cities, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, and the U.S. Travel Association. That is a nonpartisan list, and let me tell you why. The way this amendment is drafted, historic bridges could never even be repaired. The Brooklyn Bridge or other historic bridges could not be repaired and we could not control erosion. We would have major problems. I move to table the McCain amendment.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I move to table McCain amendment No. 739, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating the Jewish Federation of the Desert as the organization prepares to move into its new home in Rancho Mirage, CA. The Jewish Federation of the Desert embraces the core Jewish values of compassion, charity, generosity, and responsibility to care for those in need including the elderly, the homeless, the undereducated, and victims of abuse and violence. In addition, the federation is dedicated to supporting child and youth education, with afterschool activities, day schools, and childhood centers. On November 1, the Jewish Federation of the Desert will open its doors in Rancho Mirage. This new home will allow the federation to dedicate more of its resources to helping people in the Coachella Valley and create a vibrant new center for Jewish community life. I congratulate the Jewish Federation of the Desert and wish its staff, volunteers, and supporters continued success in carrying out its noble mission.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Early Language Proficiency Act, legislation critical to preparing young children across our country to be successful in school. Studies have shown that children who participate in pre-kindergarten programs are less likely to be held back a grade, show greater learning retention and initiative, have better social skills, are more enthusiastic about school, and are more likely to have good attendance records. Experts agree that an early education experience is one of the most effective strategies for improving later school performance. The National Research Council reported that prekindergarten educational opportunities are critical in developing early language and literacy skills and preventing reading difficulties in young children. This bill is a step forward in making a national commitment to giving all children access to high quality pre-kindergarten programs that have been proven to have a solid impact on a child's success later in school and in life. The Early Language Proficiency Act, would authorize pre-kindergarten English language instruction as an allowable use of Federal funding. With over 5 million English language learning students nationwide, 1.5 million of who reside in my home State of in California, allowing school districts to use Federal funds to prepare young English learners for grade school is critical. In addition, this legislation will help local school districts use federal funds to provide prekindergarten services to all young children they serve. Although school districts may already use Federal funds from Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act for early education, many school districts are either unaware of or are uncertain of how to use this authority. The Early Language Proficiency Act would ensure that states provide proper guidance to local schools about how to use Title I funds to educate pre-kindergarteners. The future of our Nation's economy depends on the next generation of workers, and high-quality early childhood education is key to preparing them for their careers. In the long run, pre-kindergarten programs pay for themselves. Decades of research have proven that early education programs yield between $7 to $16 for every dollar invested. Ensuring that all students start school ready to learn is essential to ensuring that we meet our goal of having the best-educated workforce and the highest proportion of college graduates in the world by 2020. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the trade agreements pending before the Senate. I first want to note how pleased I am that a full extension of trade adjustment assistance will be sent to President Obama for his signature. This important program provides much-needed job training, health care, and income support to workers whose jobs are affected by trade. As we seek to grow our economy and increase exports we must take steps to train American workers and provide them with continued job opportunities. I am supporting the free trade agreement with South Korea because of its impact on California's economy. This agreement is not perfect, but on balance I believe it will benefit California. South Korea is California's 5th largest trading partner. California companies export more than $7 billion in goods there every year. This agreement will reduce tariffs and other trade barriers for California businesses that export goods to South Korea, resulting in greater productivity in my State. In addition, the South Korean economy is advanced, with per capita GDP equal to $30,000 year and a well- developed middle class, which will provide a substantial market for all types of U.S. exports. The South Korea Free Trade Agreement also includes strong intellectual property rights that protect U.S. patents and trademarks and copyrights for films and other recorded works. These provisions are very important for California's entertainment sector. The agreement also reduces tariffs on U.S.-made machinery and high-tech products, increasing export potential for California industries. The agreement also includes carefully negotiated rules for automobiles, to protect our auto industry from unfair treatment. I am pleased that the United Auto Workers were able to support the final version. The free trade agreement opens the Korean market to the large number of agricultural products we produce in California. In February 2011, I wrote to the administration to urge better market access for two important California products: rice and fresh oranges. While I am disappointed that California rice is not part of the FTA, I was pleased that the Obama administration will continue working to expand market access for California rice and for California citrus. As the agreement is implemented I will continue to press for fair treatment for all California agricultural commodities. I am also supporting this agreement because South Korea is a close friend and strategically-important ally for the United States in East Asia. Strengthening our trade relationship will bring economic and national security benefits to both nations, and will help to ensure that the U.S.-Korea relationship remains strong in the future. The South Korea FTA is supported by the California Chamber of Commerce, the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, the Motion Picture Association of America, the California Association of Port Authorities, the California Manufacturing and Technology Association, the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association, the California Farm Bureau Federation, the Wine Institute, the Coachella Valley Economic Partnership, the California Table Grape Commission, the California Walnut Commission, the California Strawberry Commission, the California Fig Advisory Board, the California Dried Plum Board, and the Western Growers Association, among many other groups. Mr. President, as chairman of the Foreign Relations subcommittee responsible for human rights, I cannot support a free trade agreement with Colombia. In short, Colombia's human rights record is appalling. More than 2,800 union members have been murdered in Colombia in the last 25 years, including 51 last year, and many more so far in 2011. The conviction rate for union murders and other violence is shockingly low, and the Colombian government continues to support policies that deny workers the right to join unions and bargain collectively. I am pleased that under a labor rights action plan negotiated between the Obama administration and the Colombia government that steps are being taken to provide more protection for union members and to investigate crimes, but I have major concerns that these reforms do not go far enough to provide real changes for workers in Colombia. This summer trade unionists from Colombia came to the United States to discuss the environment for working people in their country. Their stories are chilling. A Colombian port worker described how he is one of the few union members at the ports because so many trade unionists have been fired for joining unions. He talked about how the unsafe working conditions have caused dozens of deaths at ports, how those who are injured on the job receive no compensation from their employer, and how older workers are routinely fired. A math and science teacher discussed how teachers who participate in organizing efforts have their salaries withheld, and that the threat of violence against teachers with union ties forces many to flee their homes and their jobs to protect their families. Human Rights Watch recently released a report that concluded that Colombia has made ``virtually no progress'' in securing convictions for killings that have occurred in the last 4 years. Until Colombia's labor and human rights record shows significant long-term improvement, I cannot support a Free Trade Agreement, especially when U.S. producers stand to gain little from market access. When the North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA, was approved, we were told that the U.S. would run a trade surplus with Mexico and gain hundreds of thousands of jobs. But instead, our trade deficit with Mexico increased to almost $100 billion, displacing an estimated 682,900 U.S. jobs. The economic situation in Mexico when NAFTA was passed is similar to the current climate in Colombia--a very low per capita GDP and a large percentage of the population living in poverty. A free trade agreement with Colombia under these conditions will result in the displacement of U.S. manufacturing jobs and few consumers for U.S. exports, just like what happened with Mexico after implementation of NAFTA. I also oppose the free trade agreement with Panama. For many years, Panama has failed to implement international tax standards. It has been a haven for those who seek to avoid their tax obligations. More than 400,000 multinational corporations register businesses in Panama, a nation with a population of 3.4 million people. That is one corporation for every seven persons. Although the recent Tax Information Exchange Agreements entered into by Panama are a step in the right direction, I will continue to have significant concerns about Panama's tax policies until they have fully implemented an accountable system. I hope that Panama will eventually develop a well-functioning tax system and cooperate with the international community, but I cannot support a Free Trade Agreement until a higher standard is reached.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I join my colleagues and so many around the world in paying tribute to Apple chairman and cofounder Steve Jobs, the Silicon Valley pioneer who died at age 56 after a long, brave fight with pancreatic cancer. I send my deepest condolences to Steve Jobs' family and friends on this devastating loss. Steve was a California icon and one of America's greatest innovators who changed the way we work, communicate, and live our daily lives. Billions of people around the world have been touched by the power of his ideas. His true genius lay in knowing what consumers wanted and needed before they themselves knew it, and then giving them simple, elegant products to meet those needs. Many of us who never knew we needed an iPad or an iPod now can't do without them. Steve was a Californian through and through: He was born in San Francisco, raised in Los Altos, and changed the world from Cupertino. He embodied California's entrepreneurial spirit of creativity and optimism. In the process, he created millions of jobs in industries that he himself helped to create. Even in the face of a deadly disease, Steve never lost his grace, his sense of humor, and his optimism. In a commencement address at Stanford University in 2005, he talked openly about his illness and urged graduates to devote their lives to following their passions. ``Your time is limited, so don't waste it living someone else's life,'' he told them. ``Don't be trapped by dogma--which is living with the results of other people's thinking. Don't let the noise of others' opinions drown out your own inner voice. And most important, have the courage to follow your heart and intuition.'' These were the principles he lived by. This was the guiding philosophy that helped create a revolution in communications. And these are the lessons that still inspire so many all across the world. All of us are deeply grateful to Steve Jobs, who showed us once again how one person really can change the world.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise today to honor our teachers here in the United States and across the globe by recognizing October 5 as World Teachers' Day. Celebrated in over 100 countries, World Teachers' Day is an occasion to acknowledge the many ways teachers make a difference in the lives of their students and in their communities. There is no doubt that teachers play a key role in our society. Quality education reduces poverty and inequality, and provides the building blocks for democracy and civic participation. Every day, over 3.5 million educators across the country work to close achievement gaps, give children the opportunity to succeed, and ensure that we have the educated workforce necessary for a global economy. I am especially proud to recognize the over 300,000 teachers, educating over 6 million students my home State of California. Last year, I was happy to work with Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa to pass the Education Jobs Fund, which has kept over 100,000 teachers in the classroom teaching our children. I know firsthand how much goes into teaching a child, and praise the talented and committed individuals in the United States and around the world who have dedicated their lives to teaching.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the amendment offered by Senator Cornyn regarding the sale of F-16C/D fighter aircraft to Taiwan. Let me begin by reiterating that I am a strong supporter of Taiwan's right to self-defense. That is why I am proud to support the proposed arms sale package to Taiwan that the Obama administration transmitted to Congress just yesterday. This package would provide an estimated $5.85 billion in arms sales to Taiwan, including a significant advanced technology upgrade to 145 F-16A/B aircraft that are currently part of Taiwan's air defense fleet. But what I cannot support is the process by which Senator Cornyn is seeking to require the sale of additional F-16C/D aircraft to Taiwan. Instead of mandating this sale on a trade adjustment bill, I would like Congress to continue to work with the Obama administration to determine how to best meet our obligations under the Taiwan Relations Act to ``make available to Taiwan such defense articles and defense services in such quantity as may be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability.'' A defeat of the Cornyn amendment does not take the potential sale of F-16C/D aircraft to Taiwan off the table. In fact, the administration has stated that it is still considering the possibility of F-16C/D sales to Taiwan. I am confident that the United States will continue to help ensure Taiwan's security and stability long into the 21st century.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 10 minutes.

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, first, I want to say thank you to the leadership on this bill. This trade adjustment assistance is so critical. When we talk about creating jobs, we also want to talk about retraining those who need, in this century, the new kinds of training it takes to keep up in this economy and this world economy. So I want to thank them for their leadership. Jobs and Deficit Reduction Madam President, I want to talk about jobs and deficit reduction. The good news on this front is that President Obama has presented to the Nation both a jobs plan and a deficit reduction plan. He has shown the Nation, through this plan, that while we must cut the deficit and the debt in the long term, we have to focus on jobs in the short term. His plan ensures that middle-class Americans get the jobs and the opportunities they need to continue to move ahead. It also makes sure we have a fair tax system in place so everyone pays his or her own fair share--not too much, not too little, but fair. So this approach is welcome. I will tell you why I welcome it. Because the approach outlined by President Obama--deficit and debt reduction, investments in jobs--was the same vision that worked before when Bill Clinton was the President. I had the honor of being here in this body to support those policies. People forget that when Bill Clinton became President, there were deficits and debt as far as the eye could see, and this country was going on the wrong path. What he did was to make sure everyone paid his or her own fair share so we had the revenues we needed to make the investments we needed to create the jobs we needed. In those years, the investments were in high-tech and biotech, and we really broke through on the global scene. Madam President, 23 million jobs were created and deficits were turned into surpluses. I remember looking back at the record. Some of my Republican colleagues who are still here today said: The Clinton approach is going to lead to the worst deficits, no job creation. They were incorrect. We lived through it, and we know that vision of cutting spending on what does not work, increasing spending on investments, everyone paying their fair share--all that turned into prosperity, 23 million jobs. What perplexes me is that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to go back to the Bush years, trickledown economics, more tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, no investments, so we even lose funding for our teachers, our firefighters, our nurses, and even our transportation stakeholders. I am so grateful we passed an extension of the highway bill for 6 months. But, believe me, we face perils ahead because the House cuts that bill by a third, and we have to make sure that does not happen because 1.8 million jobs are at stake. So I am perplexed that my Republican friends only evidence compassion and concern for the millionaires and the billionaires, but not for the middle class. Their compassion for the wealthiest is overwhelming. Their expressions of concern for billionaires--mind boggling. They call them the job creators, even though they are not the ones creating the jobs. The jobs are being created, if they are at all, by the way, by the small businesspeople. For 64 percent of new jobs, the creation comes from small business. They do not earn a million dollars. No way. So they call millionaires and billionaires job creators, which they are not, and they cry bitter tears that we might ask a millionaire or a billionaire to pay a fair share. When I was young--and maybe I shouldn't tell the truth because this is going to date me--there was a show on television called ``Dragnet.'' The star of it was Joe Friday. Joe Friday used to say: ``Just the facts.'' So let's look at just the facts. Let's look at the facts. Why are my Republican friends defending the wealthiest among us? Since 1995, the wealthiest 400 Americans have seen their tax rates fall by 40 percent, while their average income has quadrupled. Let me say that again. The wealthiest 400 families saw their income go up by four times and their tax rates went down by 40 percent. Why do they have to cry for that situation? Why the tears? Here is another fact and this is amazing. The wealthiest 400 families are worth more than 50 percent of American families. Let me say that again. The wealthiest 400 families in America are worth more than 50 percent of America's families. Senator Bernie Sanders from Vermont brought that fact to us. Why the tears for those 400 families? One of those people, Warren Buffett, came forward. Bless his heart. He said his effective tax rate is lower than his secretary's. His effective tax rate is lower than his secretary's. Why are we crying for people who earn millions and billions and pay a lower effective tax rate than their secretaries? I thank Warren Buffett for coming forward and other millionaires and billionaires have come forward and basically underscored that. Here is what he said: My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly government. It's time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice. I think he is right. Why should a millionaire or billionaire pay an effective lower tax rate than firefighters who risk their lives every day, than nurses who save lives every day, than their own assistants and secretaries who are so important in running their enterprises? Our President Obama has suggested millionaires and billionaires pay the same effective tax rate as their employees. That should be embraced, not attacked as class warfare. I ask, is it class warfare to say to a millionaire or a billionaire they should pay the same effective tax rate as their secretary or is that just the moral thing to do? It is the moral thing to do. Is it the fair thing to do? It is the fair thing to do. Our country needs everyone to help us as we tackle the deficit. So why the tears? Why the tears? These are not the job creators. These are not people who have given the last 10 years. We have seen their incomes rise exponentially and their taxes go down. So I don't think it is class warfare at all. It is just a talking point for Republicans. But since they have raised it, I would say this. I don't think it is class warfare to ask millionaires and billionaires to pay the same effective tax rate as their secretaries, but I think Republican policies are class warfare on the middle class. Look at their policies. They would end Medicare and put middle-class senior citizens in jeopardy. They want to privatize Social Security and put middle-class seniors in jeopardy. They want to cut one-third of the funds from transportation, which would mean 600,000 layoffs for middle- class workers. They stopped us from helping small business by blocking Senator Landrieu's Small Business Innovation Act. They blocked the EDA--the Economic Development Act--which would have created 1 million jobs over 5 years. They have taken no action on the FAA bill. They have not appointed conferees, and we can't get that bill done that is hundreds of thousands of jobs. When Republicans took control of the House, gross domestic product had grown at an average of 2.5 percent after the Recovery Act. Now it is down to 0.7 percent--from 2.5 percent of growth to 0.7 percent. The Republican Congress put the brakes on job creation, and that is a strong reason why this economy has slowed. Even before they have read the fine print of President Obama's proposal, they say it is dead on arrival. So let us be clear: Again, asking millionaires and billionaires to pay the same as their secretaries is not class warfare, it is moral. Mark Cuban, the owner of the Dallas Mavericks, says it is the most patriotic thing we can do. So instead of crying for millionaires and billionaires, I am thinking of sending a box of Kleenex tissues over there to Paul Ryan, who is lamenting this attack on millionaires and billionaires. Poor thing. Poor guys, poor gals. Instead of doing that, let's fight for the middle class around here. Let's get our arms around deficit reduction by asking everyone who can to pay their fair share. By the way, let's give tax breaks to the middle class. Do you know these same Republicans who are crying their tears for the millionaires and billionaires say they do not want to give a tax break to working people? They are against the payroll tax proposal which would suspend that payroll tax for a period of time. I ask them to stop blocking bills that would create jobs. Stop blocking tax breaks for the middle class. Stop going after middle-class seniors. Stop crying for billionaires and help us pass elements of the Obama jobs plan which include bipartisan proposals all of us have supported in the past. I think that is critical. We did this before with Bill Clinton--we created jobs, we strengthened the middle class, and we created surpluses by asking everyone to pay their fair share. Remember, when our President took over, this country was bleeding 700,000 jobs a month. I remember that--700,000 a month. We were on the verge of losing our automobile industry. This President took action. He doesn't get the credit for that, and that is OK. There will be time enough to spell it out. But all we have to do is look back to those days. Credit was frozen. The Presiding Officer remembers that. Capitalism was coming to an end. This President acted. I have to say this: I don't want to go back to those days of bleeding 700,000 jobs a month. I don't want to go back to the days of credit freezes. I don't want to see these deficits continue. I want everyone to pay their fair share. Most of all, I want jobs for the American people. So if we can stop crying tears for the people who have it all and we can roll up our sleeves and work together for the middle class, we will strengthen this Nation. We will solve our problems, just as we did when Bill Clinton was President. We have the roadmap. President Obama has taken steps to follow that roadmap. We know it works. We will get these deficits down, we will get the debt down, we will help the middle class and, yes, the wealthiest among us will pay the same tax rate effectively as their secretaries. You know what, if we do that, Democrats and Republicans can feel good about this country again. Let's work together and let's not say now that we can't ask billionaires to pay their fair share and let's not keep the middle class from getting their tax cuts and their jobs. That is what is important. I wish to thank the leaders on this issue for letting me have the time to talk about this middle-class attack that we are seeing, and I thank the Chair.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in reflecting on the life, accomplishments, and service of the late Jackie Lee Houston--a prominent businesswoman and philanthropist in the Coachella Valley. She passed away on September 14, 2011. Jackie Lee Houston was born and raised in Seattle, WA. She began modeling as a pre-teen and continued to do so through graduation from the University of Washington, from which she earned a degree in economics and fashion design in 1956. Her modeling led to a television career as Seattle's first female weathercaster, as well as hostess of the ``Hoffmann Easy Vision Talent Show.'' For a brief period, she pursued a professional career in Los Angeles as a model for Oscar- winning fashion designer Edith Head; but eventually she returned to Seattle to marry her college sweetheart, James Houston. In 2005, Jackie and James purchased CBS affiliate KPSP located in Thousand Palms--at the time, Jackie was one of only two women in the United States who owned a television station. Through public service announcements and profiles, they utilized their community-focused station to promote causes across the Coachella Valley--from helping the homeless to supporting food banks to AIDS research. A passionate philanthropist, Mrs. Houston quietly helped struggling individuals and her efforts benefitted a wide array of organizations, projects, and endeavors--including Angel View Crippled Children's Foundation, Palm Springs Stroke Recovery Center, Desert AIDS Project, Palm Springs International Film Festival, Palm Springs Art Museum, McCallum Theatre, Fashion Week El Paseo, and December Festival of Lights parade. She also gave unstintingly of her creativity and time-- using her Rolodex and her home to groom a new generation of philanthropists and to organize distinctive red-carpet events that raised millions for charity. In recognition of Mrs. Houston's profound influence on the Coachella Valley and the inspirational legacy she leaves for the community, the city of Palm Springs will name the new main entry plaza of the Palm Springs Convention Center in her honor. On a more personal note, it was an honor for me to have known Jackie. She and her husband founded an extraordinary food bank called FIND, which is run by Jackie's daughter-in-law, Lisa Houston. I was honored to visit FIND with Jackie and Jim at FIND's original Cathedral City location in 2009 and again in 2010 at its new home in Indio. I saw her great pride in this particular project which helps so many survive, particularly in this tough economy. I extend my heartfelt condolences to the family and friends of Mrs. Houston. She will be sorely missed by so many, including me.