Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, yesterday the Senate Ethics Committee voted unanimously to release the special counsel's report regarding the actions of former Senator John Ensign. The committee also voted unanimously to refer several findings to the Department of Justice and to the Federal Election Commission because we had reason to believe that Senator Ensign violated laws within their jurisdiction. I want to thank from the bottom of my heart the Senators who participated in this investigation, many of whom are on the floor today: my vice chairman, the extraordinary leader, Senator Isakson--and I say leader, I mean a leader on the committee. I consider him to be a cochair with me. And Senator Roberts, who has been on this committee for a long time, who has a sense of history, and a sense of levity, and pragmatism. I appreciated his cooperation. I want to note the participation of Sherrod Brown, who came on this committee and began this journey with us and his very important contribution; Senator Risch, who brought with him a very strong legal slant on everything we did and was very valuable. I want to thank him. I want to say a special word of thanks to Senator Cardin who sat in on this case because Senator Pryor felt he had too close a relationship with Senator Ensign and had to recuse himself. Senator Cardin, we thank you so much for coming in and focusing on this case. I have to say, I am so grateful to how thoroughly and hard and collaboratively we all worked during this 22-month investigation. I say--and I mean--it was an honor to work with my colleagues. The Ethics Committee is unique. Its staff is nonpartisan, and its actions are bipartisan. That is so important always, but particularly during these very polarized times, and also because this was such a long and difficult investigation for many reasons. I want to be clear about why the committee is releasing its report to the public and why Senator Isakson and I are addressing the Senate today. If any of our colleagues wish to add to our comments, I hope they will do so. While Senator Ensign's resignation ended our investigation before the next phase, which was the adjudicatory phase or the trial phase, it did not end our profound responsibilities to the Senate, to our laws, to our rules, to our Constitution, and, of course, to the American people. Article 1, section 5, clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States says that: ``each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a member.'' That is in the Constitution. Senate rules give the Ethics Committee responsibility to investigate alleged violations of laws and rules and ``improper conduct which may reflect upon the Senate.'' That is a quote from our rules. Finally, Ethics Committee rules make clear that whenever its members have ``reason to believe'' that a violation of law has occurred, we ``shall'' report it to the proper authorities. Let me say that again. Ethics Committee rules make it clear that whenever the members of the committee have reason to believe that a violation of law has occurred, we shall report it to the proper authorities. So we have a solemn responsibility indeed. It is actually a mandate to refer possible criminal or civil violations to the Department of Justice and to the Federal Election Commission. That is what we have done today. We also have another responsibility. That is to tell the American people when we believe laws and rules have been broken, and that standards of conduct have been breached. That is what we have done today. Our special counsel, Carol Elder Bruce, has written a report that speaks in great detail about her findings, and that report has been released today. These findings are so disturbing that she believed that had Senator Ensign not resigned, and had we been able to proceed to that adjudicatory phase, the evidence of Senator Ensign's wrongdoing would have been substantial enough to warrant the consideration of expulsion, the harshest penalty available to the Ethics Committee and the Senate. That is why when former Senator Ensign resigned, the vice chairman and I put out a statement, and we said that he had made ``the appropriate decision.'' I want to give you the findings of the special counsel. One. There is substantial credible evidence that Senator Ensign conspired to violate Doug Hampton's postemployment contact ban. Two. There is substantial credible evidence that Senator Ensign aided and abetted Mr. Hampton's violations of the postemployment contact ban. Three. There is substantial credible evidence that Senator Ensign made false and misleading statements to the Federal Election Commission regarding the $96,000 payment made to the Hamptons. Four. There is substantial credible evidence that the $96,000 payment to Mr. Hampton violated Federal campaign finance laws. Five. There is substantial credible evidence that Senator Ensign violated a law and a Senate rule prohibiting unofficial office accounts. Six. There is substantial credible evidence that Senator Ensign permitted spoliation of documents and engaged in potential obstruction of justice. Seven. There is substantial credible evidence that Senator Ensign discriminated on the basis of gender. Eight. There is substantial credible evidence that Senator Ensign engaged in improper conduct reflecting on the Senate, including violating his own office policies, written in a manual. These eight serious findings in the special counsel's report are the culmination of an extensive 22-month investigation and the basis for the committee's unanimous decision to refer this matter to the Department of Justice and the Federal Election Commission. As Chair of the Senate Ethics Committee, I am proud to report to the Senate that our committee and its staff and special counsel have been fair and thorough. We deposed or interviewed 72 witnesses. We issued 32 subpoenas for documents. We reviewed more than one-half million documents, including a large number that were initially withheld from the committee. None of this would have been possible without the very hard work done by the staff of our committee, our personal offices--and I am so grateful to them--the special counsel who was extraordinary and to whom we all owe a debt of gratitude. I particularly wish to thank the staff director and the chief counsel of the Ethics Committee, John Sassaman, and his team. They were focused and they searched for the truth, and we believe they found the truth. Again, I also wish to personally thank our special counsel, Carol Elder Bruce, and her team. Our Founders gave Congress the responsibility to ensure that its Members behave ethically. The Ethics Committee tries to do this by working to prevent violations of rules and laws when possible. We try to work with colleagues before they do something they shouldn't do. We try to train colleagues so they understand what we mean when we say don't bring any kind of shame upon the Senate. Then, if something bad happens, we give a fair hearing, we might sanction them, and we do when necessary. This isn't an easy task, but every member of the Ethics Committee is committed to fulfilling our critical responsibility in a thorough, fair, and bipartisan fashion. When Senator Ensign resigned, he said: ``I have not violated any law, any rule, or standard of conduct.'' I wish to go on record as chairman of the Ethics Committee to say how strongly I disagree with that statement. Let's be clear. It was Senator Ensign's actions that led to the ethics complaint filed against him. It was Senator Ensign's actions that led to a 22-month investigation by the Ethics Committee. It was Senator Ensign's actions that led to the very serious findings and referrals in the report we are releasing to the public today. The committee believes every Senator should read this report very carefully. Let me say that again. The committee believes every Senator should read this report very carefully because it is a cautionary tale. It shows that our actions--all of them--have consequences for ourselves, for our families, for our staffs, for Congress, and for our Nation. It shows we must ensure every action we take is within the law, the rules, and the appropriate standards of conduct. In my view, if I can say my own personal view, it shows something else; that is, when you are in a position of trust and power, don't abuse it. Don't misuse it because people can get hurt, very hurt. We cannot violate the laws or rules we set for others, including our own staffs. We must always lead by example, not by words alone. This Ensign case was a sad chapter for the Senate but a far sadder chapter for those whose lives were affected and destroyed by his actions. I wish to thank the Senate for placing its trust in the Ethics Committee. I yield to the vice chairman of the committee, the one whom I consider my cochairman, Senator Isakson.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, as we mark the end of National Nurses Week, I want to express my heartfelt appreciation to the nurses who serve on the front lines of our health care system. Nurses are heroes, not just to their patients, but to the families and loved ones who rely on their compassion and care. While we celebrate nurses this week, we must also acknowledge that too many nurses are overworked because of staffing levels that are simply inadequate. For decades nurses have been telling us that we need more of them to provide quality care to our loved ones, especially in hospitals. Study after study has been done, we know there is a nationwide nursing shortage. By 2020, it is estimated that the demand for full time nurses will exceed supply by 1 million nurses. That is why I am introducing the National Nursing Shortage Reform and Patient Advocacy Act, which will not only help address the nationwide shortage of skilled nurses, it will improve the quality of health care for all Americans. The National Nursing Shortage Reform and Patient Advocacy Act champions nursing rights, nursing ratios, and nursing reform. This bill protects the rights of nurses to speak out for their patients and to speak out for themselves, without the fear of discrimination or retaliation, because if there is a problem in a hospital nurses should be able to talk about it. This bill sets minimum nurse to patient ratios, because if we expect nurses to give patients high quality care we need to give nurses the time to provide it. It lays out a transparent process for establishing staffing plans in hospitals and puts forward the tools for nurses to report inadequate staffing or care. This bill reforms the role of hospitals not just in working with nurses to improve care, but also in training nurses. It creates mentorship and preceptorship programs to support nurses as they adapt to the hospital setting and grow in their profession. Twelve years ago, nurses in California fought and won a major battle for their patients and for themselves, and the results were minimum nurse to patient ratios in California hospitals. I am proud to join with nurses in their effort to improve care for their patients, and introduce Federal legislation that would extend these rights, ratios and reforms to nurses in hospitals across the country. Reports on California ratios have only begun to show what so many of the nurses I meet already know, that setting a minimum standard for safe staffing can mean the difference between life and death of patients. A 2002 study found that for every patient added to a nurse's workload there is a 7 percent increase in the chance of death following common surgeries. In California, the hospitals that have seen the greatest effect in reduced mortality were the ones that started with the worst staffing ratios. We also know that hospitals are losing good nurses because of these staffing shortages. A poll of nurses nationwide found that almost half of the nurses who plan to quit their job say that inadequate staffing is the reason they are leaving. The cost of replacing these valuable workers has been estimated at $25,000 to $60,000 per nurse. That is an added cost that we know our health care system cannot afford. Too many nurses get burned out by being overloaded with too many patients. Too many nurses have given up on serving in hospitals because the hospitals have given up on providing a better environment for both nurses and patients. Investing more in nursing staff will help hospitals avoid costly medical mistakes and provide better care for their patients and most importantly, will save lives. I joined many of my colleagues in supporting provisions of health care reform that invested in our health care workforce. At 2.9 million strong, nurses are the largest health care workforce in our country, and this investment is long overdue. I am pleased to share that this bill has the support of the California Nurses Association as well as AFSCME-United Nurses of America. Nurses are not just the face of the movement to improve health care in our country, they are the face of health care in our country. This bill is for them and the patients they so faithfully serve.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, as we mark the end of National Nurses Week, I want to express my heartfelt appreciation to the nurses who serve on the front lines of our health care system. Nurses are heroes, not just to their patients, but to the families and loved ones who rely on their compassion and care. While we celebrate nurses this week, we must also acknowledge that too many nurses are overworked because of staffing levels that are simply inadequate. For decades nurses have been telling us that we need more of them to provide quality care to our loved ones, especially in hospitals. Study after study has been done, we know there is a nationwide nursing shortage. By 2020, it is estimated that the demand for full time nurses will exceed supply by 1 million nurses. That is why I am introducing the National Nursing Shortage Reform and Patient Advocacy Act, which will not only help address the nationwide shortage of skilled nurses, it will improve the quality of health care for all Americans. The National Nursing Shortage Reform and Patient Advocacy Act champions nursing rights, nursing ratios, and nursing reform. This bill protects the rights of nurses to speak out for their patients and to speak out for themselves, without the fear of discrimination or retaliation, because if there is a problem in a hospital nurses should be able to talk about it. This bill sets minimum nurse to patient ratios, because if we expect nurses to give patients high quality care we need to give nurses the time to provide it. It lays out a transparent process for establishing staffing plans in hospitals and puts forward the tools for nurses to report inadequate staffing or care. This bill reforms the role of hospitals not just in working with nurses to improve care, but also in training nurses. It creates mentorship and preceptorship programs to support nurses as they adapt to the hospital setting and grow in their profession. Twelve years ago, nurses in California fought and won a major battle for their patients and for themselves, and the results were minimum nurse to patient ratios in California hospitals. I am proud to join with nurses in their effort to improve care for their patients, and introduce Federal legislation that would extend these rights, ratios and reforms to nurses in hospitals across the country. Reports on California ratios have only begun to show what so many of the nurses I meet already know, that setting a minimum standard for safe staffing can mean the difference between life and death of patients. A 2002 study found that for every patient added to a nurse's workload there is a 7 percent increase in the chance of death following common surgeries. In California, the hospitals that have seen the greatest effect in reduced mortality were the ones that started with the worst staffing ratios. We also know that hospitals are losing good nurses because of these staffing shortages. A poll of nurses nationwide found that almost half of the nurses who plan to quit their job say that inadequate staffing is the reason they are leaving. The cost of replacing these valuable workers has been estimated at $25,000 to $60,000 per nurse. That is an added cost that we know our health care system cannot afford. Too many nurses get burned out by being overloaded with too many patients. Too many nurses have given up on serving in hospitals because the hospitals have given up on providing a better environment for both nurses and patients. Investing more in nursing staff will help hospitals avoid costly medical mistakes and provide better care for their patients and most importantly, will save lives. I joined many of my colleagues in supporting provisions of health care reform that invested in our health care workforce. At 2.9 million strong, nurses are the largest health care workforce in our country, and this investment is long overdue. I am pleased to share that this bill has the support of the California Nurses Association as well as AFSCME-United Nurses of America. Nurses are not just the face of the movement to improve health care in our country, they are the face of health care in our country. This bill is for them and the patients they so faithfully serve.

Mrs. BOXER

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

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, it is my honor to be here to support the nomination of Judge Edward Chen to the Northern District of California. I congratulate Judge Chen and I congratulate his family on this momentous day that is long overdue. I wish to thank Senator Feinstein for her hard work and her leadership in support of Judge Chen's nomination. I think the way we do our judge recommendations in California is exemplary. What we do is, we each have a committee that advises us, and they come up with the names of a few people who they think are the top choices. Then, each of us makes that recommendation to the President. Judge Chen was her nominee. Judge Chen has had a distinguished career. He enjoys broad support and respect in California's legal community. When I heard the remarks of my colleague from Iowa, Senator Grassley, it broke my heart because it doesn't sound to me as though he knows Judge Chen. He seems to be criticizing someone else--someone who sets aside the law. That is not Judge Chen. Judge Chen will make an outstanding addition to the Federal bench. Since 2001, Judge Chen has served as a magistrate judge in the Northern District of California, where he has issued over 350 published legal opinions. Before coming to the bench, Judge Chen was a respected civil rights lawyer and part of the trial team that successfully overturned the wartime conviction of Fred Korematsu. He made history when he became the first Asian-American magistrate judge to serve in the Northern District. Today, Judge Chen takes another history-making step if he is confirmed--and I surely hope he will be--because when he is confirmed, he will be only the second Asian American in the 150-year history of the Northern District to be confirmed as a judge. In our great Nation, we are a melting pot. I don't believe we can have the kind of justice our Founders envisioned unless we have juries of our peers and we have judges who also represent the broad quilt that is America. I think this is something to talk about, not to ignore. While I am proud we are finally going to vote on the confirmation of Judge Chen, I have to again express frustration that it took so long to reach this point. Judge Chen was nominated over 21 months ago. I ask everyone to think about this--the family, everybody waiting for this moment, years and years on the bench with an outstanding record. I remember attending Judge Chen's confirmation hearing in September 2009. He was nominated for a judicial emergency seat, one that has been vacant since April 2008. That is a judicial emergency. We don't have enough judges. So one would think we would move quickly on this. Following his hearing, his nomination was held up by an unprecedented campaign of obstruction, unfortunately, by my friends in the Republican Party. They refused to allow an up-or-down vote, and they forced the White House to renominate Judge Chen, not once, not twice, not three times but four times-- four times. I tell my colleagues, I have read their objections, and they boil down to this: They object because once he worked as a staff attorney for the ACLU handling civil rights cases. This is a man who received the highest rating from the American Bar Association. They gave him the ``well qualified'' rating. So I have to ask my colleagues why they would object to someone who did a good job defending the Constitution. By the way, I don't agree with the ACLU all the time, believe me. I am surprised at this objection. For example, the ACLU and the tea party in my State right now--in northern California--are working together to oppose free speech restrictions in front of the Redding Library. In fact, the ACLU and the tea party filed parallel lawsuits to strike down the restrictions. So my friends on the other side who give the tea party a tremendous amount of support, I am a little surprised they would go after the ACLU, which is partnering with the tea party in defending the Constitution. It is hard for me to believe that because Ed Chen was once a staff attorney for the ACLU, he would come under this kind of fire. They never objected to anything from his 9 years as a magistrate judge, not one complaint about any of the opinions he has written. Judge Chen's record as a fair and impartial judge since 2001 demonstrates clearly that he understands the difference between being an advocate and being a judge. So I don't think we should say anyone who was ever the staff attorney for this organization or that organization is barred from getting promoted. That is a sad thing. I don't think people should be voted down or voted against because they stand for equal rights and civil rights. If anything, we ought to say: That is great, because we all want our civil rights protected. We all want our rights that are guaranteed to us in the Constitution protected. Judge Roberts, the Chief Justice, has called on Senators to stop playing politics with judicial nominees. I have to say, to me, this sounds like politics. You don't like an organization, so then you say someone who has been a judge for 9 years--you have no complaints about him--go back 10 years and now say because you don't like that organization, they can't be promoted. Chief Justice Roberts has warned that delays in filling vacancies has created acute difficulties in some judicial districts. That is a quote. Let me read it. The delays in filling vacancies ``has created acute difficulties in some judicial districts.'' Certainly, we know in this district we have been in an emergency situation. It is time to get Judge Chen seated so he can continue serving the people of northern California as a district court judge. I commend Judge Chen for his strength and his perseverance over the past 21 months. This has not been an easy process. I commend his family for standing by him. I again commend Senator Feinstein for fighting for him, and I commend everybody here who was able to somehow hammer out an agreement to have an up-or-down vote on this very talented man. I close with great hopes that we are going to get this nominee confirmed. In advance of that--and I hope I am right in doing this--I wish to congratulate Judge Chen and his family. I urge my colleagues to cast their votes to confirm this highly qualified and respected nominee to the Northern District and make history in doing so and be proud in doing so and know that when we put qualified people on the court who bring a different background to the court, we are doing something very positive for America. That is what America is. I am a first-generation American on my mother's side, and I can tell my colleagues what I learned from her: that we should kiss the ground in this country. As I grew up, I realized that one of the great things about our country is we are such an experiment in democracy. People from every background, every religion, differences, but we believe in one thing; that is, protection of our rights and the belief in freedoms we get from this Nation and we vow to protect those freedoms. Part of protecting those freedoms is putting people on the bench who understand that. As Benjamin Franklin once said: You have a Republic if you can keep it. The way to keep it is not to bar people from getting these up-or-down votes. Put good people on this bench. You can vote no. You can vote yes. Yes, there are times when we say we want a supermajority, but for Ed Chen, I can tell my colleagues right now, this isn't one of those times. I look forward to his positive vote. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time that is unused during the quorum calls be charged to both sides.

Mrs. BOXER. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to two dedicated Navy officers who were tragically killed in a training accident in my home State of California. LT Matthew Ira Lowe and LT Nathan Hollingsworth Williams died on April 6, 2011, after their F/A-18F Super Hornet crashed near the Lemoore Naval Air Station in central California. Lieutenants Lowe and Williams were assigned to Strike Fighter Squadron VFA-122, based at Lemoore Naval Air Station. LT Matthew Ira Lowe of Plantation, FL, had a lifelong passion for flying. He received an engineering degree from the University of Central Florida in 2001. While in college, he also earned his pilot's license. He later joined the Navy and received his commission through Officer Candidate School in February 2003. Most recently, Lieutenant Lowe served as an instructor, and had been training to become a pilot for the elite Blue Angels exhibition team. A decorated pilot who earned the Navy/Marine Corps Achievement Medal and the National Defense Service Medal, Lieutenant Lowe will be remembered by those who served with him for his sense of humor and outgoing personality. Lieutenant Lowe is survived by his parents Ira and Pamela Lowe, and two elder siblings. He was 33 years old. A native of Oswego, NY, LT Nathan Hollingsworth Williams attended the University of Rochester on a Navy Reserve Officer Training Corps scholarship. Upon graduating with honors in mathematics in 2004, he reported for duty at Naval Air Station Pensacola for flight training where he earned his naval flight officer wings. Lieutenant Williams was deployed to Afghanistan, where he served aboard the U.S.S. Theodore Roosevelt, providing air support for U.S. ground troops. After returning from Afghanistan, Lieutenant Williams was chosen as a flight instructor at Lemoore Naval Air Station. For his service, Lieutenant Williams received a number of awards including two Presidential Air Medals, the Afghanistan Campaign Medal with Star, Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, Pistol Marksmanship Medal, and Sea Service Deployment Ribbon. A dedicated Buffalo Bills fan, he will be remembered as a kind and caring person who was always willing to lend a hand to those in need. Lieutenant Williams is survived by his wife Meredith; his parents Alan and Gay Williams; and his brothers Jeffrey and Seth. He was 28 years old. Nothing can fully account for the loss suffered by the families of Lieutenants Lowe and Williams, and all those who loved them. But I hope they can take comfort in the knowledge that they will be forever honored and remembered by a grateful Nation.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank Senator Leahy for his eloquent statement he made about the capture and killing of Osama bin Laden and the impact and the need for us to come together as one Nation. Mr. President, almost 10 years ago after the horrific attacks of 9/ 11, I voted to go after Osama bin Laden, as all of us did in the Senate at that time, to make sure justice would prevail. Now we know and the world knows that Osama bin Laden has paid the ultimate price for what he did. His death does not lessen the tragic loss of all those killed by al- Qaida or the pain of their loved ones, but it closes a chapter on his unspeakable acts, and there were more than one. They go back to October 2000. They go back to 1998 when their operatives attacked our people on the USS Cole and the U.S. Embassy in Nairobi, Kenya, and there are other attacks that occurred as well. What I want to do in a few minutes today is go back to some of the things I said on September 12, 2001, from a different seat, because I did not have much seniority. I was somewhere over on the front row. The reason I want to restate and read from the Record as to what I said on that day is because I think it is important for me, for myself, to get the type of closure I wanted to get when I cast that vote to go after Osama bin Laden, to go to war and get him. It reminds me of that thirst for justice we all had on that day and that we still have. This is what I said on September 12, 2001: Today I rise with pain in my heart and great emotion to offer my prayers and my condolences for the people in this country who have been directly hit by an act of war, people in the State of my birth, New York, looking at that skyline, the people who work at the Pentagon every day who have chosen to work to protect our Nation, and the people of California, my State, who were on those planes that were hijacked and, of course, to every other individual who was directly affected and to all of us who have been affected. I went on to say this: One of our colleagues said we remember where we were when tragedy hit this country. I remember too many things--not as many perhaps as Senators who are older, but I certainly remember where I was when I saw John Kennedy go down and Martin Luther King go down, the Challenger disaster, and yesterday the image of those planes, commercial and American planes, four of them going down, crashing into buildings, being used as lethal weapons against our people--an image that has shaken us but has not shaken our resolve. I went on to say: I am going to make a very strong statement. When we look back into history and what happened in Bosnia, people suffered genocide because of their nationality, and to the Holocaust, people suffered annihilation because of their nationality. People were killed yesterday because they were Americans. People were killed not because they were bad people--they were good people--they were killed because they were Americans. That is what I said on the day after 9/11/2001. Then I said: It is time for us to say we will fight and stand up for them and their memories. We will take a stand against inhumanity that occurred on our own soil. We are resolved to honor those who died. We are resolved to make our Nation as safe as it can be from those acts. We are resolved to hold those who planned these attacks and who harbor these people absolutely 100 percent accountable. We will hold them accountable. That is what I said on September 12, 2001. They must pay because this is the test of a civilized nation. We lead the civilized nations of the world. We will not back down. I stand proudly with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and with our President. We will be resolved to do everything--and do it well and do it right--to bring justice in the world. Later that day, to the press I said: I've never been at ground zero in a war, but, after this, war is not an overstatement. The people who perpetrated this are the scum of the Earth, and their views, their philosophy, their version of civilization, if you can call it that, will not stand. I am going to conclude my remarks by saying that in my heart, the flames of justice are burning bright today. I thank our President for his resolve, for ordering this attack--a successful attack--on bin Laden's compound. To the bravest of the brave, I understand they were Navy Seals who went in there, not thinking 1 second about their own lives. The fact that the President ordered this, that he kept it quiet while he had to be distracted from things that, let us say, he should not have been distracted with--but he did it. He kept his focus. It is an important moment in our history. The message is going out to anyone who would hurt us: They will be held accountable. They can run, but they are never going to hide from us and from justice. We know we cannot let down our guard. We know that. But we also know we are not going to cower in a corner because we are fearful that somebody may try to hurt us. We are prepared. We are going to do everything we can to be prepared. But this is quite a moment. I will never forget seeing the Pentagon on fire, flames shooting out. I was in an office right near here and looked out the window. We were told to evacuate the Capitol. That is seared in my memory. Anyone who cares about justice, anyone who cares about the truth, anybody who cares about fairness and responsibility has to say that yesterday was a day when justice was done. I am going to close by reading the names of the Californians who lost their lives because I told their families I will honor each one in every way I can. I think that ending my statement by paying tribute to them is important: David Angell of Pasadena; Lynn Angell of Pasadena; Seima Aoyama of Los Angeles; Barbara Aresteguis of Los Angeles; Melissa Barnes of Redlands; Alan Beaven of Emeryville; Berry Berenson of Los Angeles; Carolyn Beug of Los Angeles; Yeneneh Betru of Burbank; Mark Bingham of San Francisco; Deora Bodley of Santa Clara; Touri Bolourchi of Beverly Hills; Daniel Brandhourst of Hollywood Hills; David Brandhourst of Hollywood Hills; Thomas Burnett of San Ramon; Suzanne Calley of San Martin; Jefferey Collman of Novato; Dorothy Dearaujo of Long Beach; Darlene Flagg of Corona; Dee Flagg of Corona; Wilson Flagg of Corona; Lisa Frost of Rancho Santa Margarita; Ronald Gamboa of Los Angeles; Andrew Garcia of Portola Valley; Edmund Glazer of Chatsworth; Lauren Grandcolas of San Rafael; Andrew Curry Green of Los Angeles; Richard Guadagno of Humboldt County; Stanley Hall of Rancho Palos Verdes; Gerald Hardacre of Carlsbad; John Hofer of Bellflower; Stephen Hyland of Claremont; Barbara Keating of Palm Springs; Chandler Keller of El Segundo; Jude Larson of Los Angeles; Natalie Larson of Los Angeles; Daniel John Lee of Van Nuys; Maclovio Lopez of Norwalk; Dora Menchaca of Santa Monica; Nicole Miller of San Jose; Laurie A. Neira of Los Angeles; Ruben Orneda of Los Angeles; Jerrold Paskins of Anaheim Hills; Thomas Pecorelli of Los Angeles; Robert Penniger of Poway; Mari- Rae Sopper of Santa Barbara; Alicia Titus of San Francisco; Otis Tolbert of Lemoore; Pendyala Vamsikrishna of Los Angeles; Timothy Ward of San Diego; and John Wenckus of Torrance. I said then on September 12, in the name of these Californians and in the name of the other innocent victims, it is time for the terrorism to stop. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

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

Mrs. BOXER. I yield back all remaining time.

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

Mrs. BOXER

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

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am so amazed that the lies that have been stated about Planned Parenthood on this floor have been repeated again and again. You know, it gets pretty bad when you are so outrageous that Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart start to look at what you are saying on the Senate floor. That is a rarity. This all started when Senator Kyl took to the floor and said that 90 percent of what Planned Parenthood does is abortions. Well, that was a little bit wrong. Ninety percent of what Planned Parenthood does is health care--no abortions. As a matter of fact, it is 97 percent. And every dollar of Federal funds that goes to health care may not, since the 1970s--not one slim dime--go toward abortion. Senator Vitter upped that just now and says that 98 percent of what Planned Parenthood does is abortion. I don't know what he is thinking. But let me reiterate, Planned Parenthood is a nonprofit organization. He says they make a profit. You could say anything, but that doesn't make it true. I think it is interesting that in the 1960s and 1970s Planned Parenthood, which has become the prime target of the rightwing of Republicans, drew the support of prominent members of the GOP. Richard Nixon signed family planning legislation that authorized Federal funding for groups such as Planned Parenthood. Former Senator Barry Goldwater's wife Peggy was a founding member of Planned Parenthood in Arizona, and former President George Herbert Walker Bush, as a Republican Congressman from Houston, spoke frequently on the House floor about the issue. So it is astounding how the rightwing of the Republican Party has walked so far away from their most revered leaders. That is their choice. But it is also our choice as to whether we are going to stand here and take it or come here and rebut what they are saying. So count me in and count the Democratic women and many men on this side of the aisle who have stood sentry on this and told the truth about this. And the truth is we are in a budget debate. Everything the Republicans have said is that we have to close the deficit gap, we have to cut spending, cut spending, cut spending. And we said: Okay, we will join you, but where were you during George Bush's day? You never said a word. But putting that aside, we will meet you. When we had the majority and Bill Clinton was the President, we were the only ones who did get a balanced budget and 23 million jobs. So we know how to do it, and of course we are going to work with our colleagues. We met them over 70 percent of the way on spending cuts. But guess what. They are so ideological and so extreme that what we heard from Senator Vitter today is not a discussion about the budget deficit and the fact that we have to get on top of it and get that budget balanced, as we did under the Clinton administration. We heard about abortion, abortion, abortion, which has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Because, as I said, not one slim dime of Federal money has been able to be used for abortion since the 1970s, and 97 percent of what Planned Parenthood does is health care, not abortion. We know the real priority of these Republicans in Congress. We know the real priority. We know what it is. It is an ideological agenda that, frankly, puts women's health and women's lives at risk. Here we had this huge debate over the budget--tough, getting down where we were all sweating it out to within an hour of the moment the government would shut down--and the two things the Republicans insisted on voting on, on a budget bill, have nothing to do with the budget. For every dollar that Planned Parenthood gets to help them do cancer screenings for women, Pap smears, breast cancer screenings, STDs--and they do for men as well--HIV testing, blood pressure checks, diabetes checks, they charge a sliding scale. You walk in there, you have no insurance, you have no money, you get the services for free. If you have some, you pay some. The bottom line is, this is what they are holding up this agreement over, and they are forcing us to vote on Planned Parenthood and repealing health care reform. I say that is extraordinary, because we met them on the numbers. But in order to appease their rightwing agenda, they are forcing these votes. If these bills were to pass, who gets hurt? Women and their families. I have some letters I have received from Californians, because 750,000 women are served by Planned Parenthood clinics in California-- 750,000 women. That is actually more than some States have. I am going to share a letter. I have shared a few of them, but I got this one today. Dear Senator Boxer, I don't write to you often because you already stand up and fight for everything I believe in. I heard you on NPR this morning talking about women's health and the cuts the Republicans want to make to Planned Parenthood. I'm a 42 year old married professional. My husband and I aren't in the highest bracket, but our combined income puts us in the $170,000 year range. Frankly, we're happy, more than happy to pay our fair share of taxes for the things that will help our society as a whole. We are appalled by the budget discussions. If you really want to cut spending, do so where it is really outrageous . . . defense and military. There's 60 percent right there. However, what has me outraged right now is . . . The Republican Party is. . . . willing to shut down the government over a few dollars for Planned Parenthood. If you really cared about limiting abortion funding, family planning is the first step. When I was 20 years old, I was working my way through school. I was a sophomore in college with limited income, no parental support, no health insurance. The one thing I did have access to medically was Planned Parenthood. The services were on a sliding scale, so at my income of $850 a month, a gynecological exam was $10. This meant that I went. . . . I also got birth control pills there . . . However, probably the most significant cross road in my life came about because of Planned Parenthood. My family has a history of female cancers. I had a Pap smear come back abnormal when I was 21. 1). Had it not been for Planned Parenthood, I would not have been able to afford the annual Pap smear. 2). Planned Parenthood did a biopsy on the ``abnormality.'' Again, it was a sliding scale and while I can't recall exactly how much this was, it was something I could manage . . . 3). Biopsy showed that it was a potentially very dangerous pre-cancerous growth that needed to be removed. 4). I did eat beans and rice for the next 2 months to pay my share to Planned Parenthood for removing this growth. 5). I had to have Paps 2 times a year for the next several years . . . Again, all I could afford was Planned Parenthood. Frankly, if it wasn't for Planned Parenthood, there's a pretty good chance I wouldn't be here today. It's not about abortion, it's about women's health. I have to say, these are the letters I have been getting day after day after day, and I am very proud of the people who have stood up and told the truth to counter the lies I have heard, frankly from Members of Congress. This woman's name is Heather Jones from Costa Mesa. The bottom line is, if you turn and look at the two votes we are going to have today, they both hurt women disproportionately. This isn't about the budget. If it were about a budget, they would give more money to the Title X program because for every dollar we invest, we save $4 on the other side. What would have happened if Heather hadn't found out she had a dangerous precancerous growth? That would have gone forward, she would have gotten cancer, and Lord knows what it would have cost. She didn't make any money at that time, so she would have had to have help from her county. It would have cost taxpayers. She would have been ill and gone through hell and back fighting this, and who knows if she would have made it. The second vote we are having has to do with rolling back health care reform--another attack on women. It is an attack on everyone, but I want to look at what it does to women. I know the Presiding Officer knows this, because he has been a leader on this issue, but before we passed our health reform law, being a woman was a preexisting condition. If you were the victim of domestic violence and you were a woman, they wouldn't insure you. They would say: You have a preexisting condition. What is that? Well, your husband beat you. And guess what. He could do it again, so you are a high risk. Goodbye. We said no. No, that can't happen. If you had a cesarean section and you tried to get insurance, they would say: No, no. Since you had a cesarean section, you could have another one. It is too expensive. Bye. We said, no; you can't do that. You can't turn away people simply because they were the victim of domestic violence or had a Caesarean. You cannot turn away a person because she is a woman. In 2014, insurance companies will not be able to deny anyone coverage because of a preexisting condition. Another issue my colleague fought hard on, along with all of us, is gender rating. Insurance companies charge women in California nearly 40 percent more than men for similar coverage. Can you imagine? So when they say let's repeal health reform, who are they hurting? Disproportionately women. When they say no more funding for Planned Parenthood to continue their great work on basic health care, who are they hurting disproportionately? Women. Preventive care was a key in that health reform. I thank the Presiding Officer. He served on the appropriate committee that made that decision. I will tell you, right now women delay or avoid getting preventive care, but once health reform goes into place we know there will be preventive health care services such as mammograms without a copay or a deductible. So when you repeal the health reform and everything we did for the people, who do you hurt? Women. Who is going to get sick more than any other group? Women. Maternity care is not covered by many insurance companies. We changed all that. By 2014 insurance will be required to cover maternity care services. Let's look at Medicare. We made many reforms in health care dealing with Medicare. More than half of the people who depend on Medicare are women; 56 percent of Medicare recipients are women. When you end Medicare, as Mr. Ryan does in his so-called Ryan budget where he ends Medicare--let's call it what it is--you are throwing women under the bus. This time it is elderly women. How proud are you of that, Mr. Ryan? I am not proud that kind of proposal would come out, and it is starting here today, when we vote to repeal health care reform. Health care reform extended the life of the Medicare trust fund by 12 years, to 2037. Why on Earth would the Republicans want to repeal a law that strengthens Medicare and makes it viable until 2037? Let me tell you what else would be repealed if they have their way today. Every senior on Medicare is going to get a free annual wellness exam. Let me repeat that. Every person on Medicare is going to get a free annual wellness exam. It will get them access to preventive health services such as vaccinations and cancer screenings with no copay and no deductible. Why did we do that? First and foremost, we did it because it is the right thing to do, but it saves money at the end of the day when we invest up front in prevention. That is why the Congressional Budget Office said our bill saves billions of dollars over time. Investing in prevention--just like Planned Parenthood did with my constituent, Heather, where a cancer was discovered early--means that an individual will get the care early, will get on top of this and will not have to spend a lot of money on it and will be spared the pain and suffering and all the rest that goes with cancer. There is one more thing that they repeal. I didn't see this one. If they get their way today, seniors are not going to see that infamous doughnut hole that they fall into on their prescription drugs closed. They are not going to see that closed. Right now it happens after they pay a certain amount of money for their prescription drugs, a couple of thousand dollars. Then they say Medicare prescription drug coverage is not going to cover them. So they fall into that doughnut hole. We close that forever by 2020. They want to cancel that so seniors are going to have to pay more for their prescription drugs. We live in the greatest country in the world, and we have access to so many wonderful health advances--be they medical devices, be they prescription drugs. But what good does it do if we cannot get those things? By repealing health care reform--which our Republican friends want to do, and today we have a vote to do it--seniors, women, and their families will lose access to lifesaving drugs. They will lose access to preventive care. They will lose access to fair insurance coverage. Again, disproportionately it impacts women. That is just the way the demographics are because 56 percent of Medicare recipients are women. Let's be very clear. Let's send a strong message tonight, or whatever time it is that we vote on these two amendments, that we are standing strong--if we vote them down--we are standing strong for women, we are standing strong for their families, we are standing strong for Americans. Anyone who would take these important reforms away, anyone who would say we do not care about the 3 million people who get their health care from Planned Parenthood, are saying they do not care much about those people. By the way, there was some news program that said: What do you need Planned Parenthood for? You can go to Walgreens and get all those services? Somebody said. I never heard of getting a Pap smear at Walgreens or a breast cancer screening, that doesn't come to mind. So Walgreens actually had to put out a press release stating they do not do those things. Let's start talking the truth on the floor of the Senate. The truth is, there is an ideological agenda around this place, and it is crystallizing. My Republican friends have gone a bridge too far. People are catching on because now it is starting to affect them. They are Republicans, they are Independents, they are Democrats. This is not about party. I can assure you, the people who are writing me who go to Planned Parenthood to get their health care, their preventive care, their blood pressure checked, their diabetes checked, they come from every political party. The Title X program, in the beginning, and when it was formed, had the strongest support from Republicans. That is how it was. But these Republicans today have walked so far away from their own party that they are looking at a bill signed by Richard Nixon, voted for by George Herbert Walker Bush, and saying: No, we are not interested in family planning. They are distorting the debate. If people want fewer abortions there is one place we can all walk together; that is, prevention of unwanted pregnancies, birth control, contraception. They do not even want that. They do not even want that. They have just overreached. I am a person who says I respect you know matter what your views are. I would stand in front of a truck to protect your right to state your views, whatever they are. I do not tell people what to think about issues. I think they should be respected for what they decide. But big government should not be telling people what to think about the most personal decisions. That is not what America is about. We have, over the years, crafted some good compromises in the area of reproductive health care. We have said people have a right to choose in the early stages of a pregnancy. That is what the Supreme Court has said. It has been upheld since the 1970s. In the beginning of a pregnancy, a woman and her family and her doctor and her God, that is who will be consulted. It is up to her to make that decision, early in the pregnancy. As the pregnancy moves on, the State has an interest in the decision on this issue. As the pregnancy moves on--but always her life and health must be protected. That is the law. Not one penny of Federal funds can be used for abortion except in the case of rape, incest, life of the mother. I happen to be the one who carried that amendment on rape and incest because before that, we did not have that amendment. That was over on the House side many years ago. We have a compromise. I would say to my friends, if you do not like that compromise then come on the Senate floor and make a woman a criminal and make a doctor a criminal-- introduce your legislation. We will fight it out and the people will weigh in. What the people will say is: Compromise. Compromise is fair. It is not perfect, but it is fair. But, no, that is not what they will do because they know if they say a woman is a criminal, it is a bridge too far. So what they try to do is vilify an organization that has been in place for 95 years, Planned Parenthood. They will vilify an organization when 97 percent of their work goes to basic health care and family planning. It is really sad. It is wrong. I am here to say every time it comes up--the women Democrats, we have been on the Senate floor already. We are going to continue this battle with our male friends because nobody can tell me they care about women when they are about to vote to deny women basic health care. No one can tell me they care about families when they are about to deny families basic health care. No one can tell me they care about families when they want to repeal a law that outlaws gender discrimination, that outlaws the ability of an insurance company to turn you away if you were the victim of domestic violence or had a Cesarean section. Nobody can tell me you care about seniors when you embrace the Ryan budget that ends Medicare. No one can tell me you care about seniors when, today, you are going to have a vote to repeal health care reform that gives them more funding for their prescription drugs, that gives them free wellness checks without a copay or deductible. We always say around here: Whose side are you on? Are you on the side of the people, or are you on the side of the insurance companies? Are you on the side of the people, or are you more interested in scoring political, ideological points with the extreme wing of your party? Those are the questions. I think the answer is going to come back tonight. I think we are going to defeat these two radical amendments. I hope it will send a message to our House friends who are going to have a radical budget that the experts tell us is going to lose hundreds of thousands of jobs--I correct myself, the experts tell us the Ryan budget would lead to the loss of 2.2 million jobs. Can you imagine? The only beneficiary of that budget is billionaires and multimillionaires. I am happy to be in the Senate at this moment in history because, to me, these are the issues. I have to say, these are the issues I had in my campaign, and they were very direct. I thank the people of California for sending me back here. We have 38 million people, the largest State in the Union. Every time you take away something from a Planned Parenthood or another health care center, you hurt more of my people than anybody else because we are such a large State. Today we start the votes, and I am grateful I could stand up and speak out against both of these radical amendments--one to defund an organization that is helping 3 million people a year in America, and, second, repeal of health care reform that does so much good. I think we are going to win those votes, and I certainly hope so. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 14, 2011, at 2:15 p.m., in room 628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 14, 2011, at 10 a.m., in SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct an exective business meeting.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 14, 2011, at 2:30 p.m.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 14, 2011, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Federal Regulation: How Best to Advance the Public Interest?''.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 14, 2011.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 14, 2011.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 14, 2011, at 2:30 p.m., to hold a hearing entitled, ``Assessing the FY 2012 Budget for Africa.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the 96th Anniversary of the Armenian Genocide--a tragedy that has left a dark stain on the collective conscience of mankind. What has made this tragedy even more painful--particularly for the Armenian people--is the failure of successive U.S. administrations to acknowledge the deliberate massacre of the Armenians by its rightful name--genocide. So today, I also rise to reiterate my call to President Barack Obama to finally right this terrible wrong. In 2008, then-Senator Obama said: . . . the Armenian Genocide is not an allegation, a personal opinion, or a point of view, but rather a widely documented fact supported by an overwhelming body of historical evidence. The facts are undeniable. I could not agree more. And every day that goes by without full acknowledgement of these undeniable facts by the United States prolongs the pain felt by descendants of the victims, as well as the entire Armenian community. Countless experts have documented the atrocities that occurred between 1915 and 1923, when more than 1.5 million Armenians were marched to their deaths in the deserts of the Middle East, murdered in concentration camps, drowned at sea, and forced to endure unimaginable acts of brutality at the hands of the Ottoman Empire--now modern-day Turkey. Yet successive U.S. administrations continue only to refer to the genocide by such terms as ``annihilation,'' ``massacre,'' and ``murder.'' This is not only an affront to the memory of the victims and to their descendants, but it does a disservice to the United States as it seeks to stand up to those who are perpetrating violence today. In a recent speech President Obama eloquently said: Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. The United States is not a nation that turns a blind eye to atrocities, and that is why it is so important that we finally acknowledge the Armenian genocide for what it was--genocide. As I have said, genocide is only possible when people avert their eyes. Any effort to deal with genocide--in the past, present, or future, must begin with the truth. So this April 24, as we pause to remember the victims and to honor the countless contributions Armenian Americans have made to our great country, I hope that the U.S. finally stands on the right side of history and calls the tragedy of 1915-1923 by its rightful name.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank Senators Mikulski and Murray, Senators Cantwell and Shaheen and Stabenow and Landrieu--I am going to really name every single Democratic woman. They have been unbelievable. Since the beginning of this budget battle, our Republican friends in the House have insisted that this debate is about spending. I have to tell you, we went all the way to them--about 70-plus percent--on spending cuts. We understand we have to cut, but we are not going to cut foolishly, we are not going to cut into the heart and soul of our country. That includes women's health programs, title X, Planned Parenthood funding. For every dollar of taxpayer funds for title X, the yield is $4. That is how great the prevention is. Yet what do they want to do? We see these two riders, these two votes we have to have before they will allow us to have a vote on keeping the government open. They pounded the table and said: We have to have two riders. What was it? Was it some big budgetary item that maybe we overlooked? Was it some move that would say that taxpayers who are not paying their taxes due, like some of the big corporate giants that hire enough lawyers that they don't pay--no, it was not about that. Was it about some scandal they uncovered that they said could save us money? No. The two votes they want are about giving the shaft to women, women and their families. The two votes are about health care which primarily impacts women--by the way, also men, but primarily impacts women. If that is the kind of budget war they are engaged in, they have met us on the battlefield. We have decided we will remain on that battlefield, which is this Senate floor, as long as we have to. We will go to the galleries, we will go to the press as long as we have to. We will fight it in our cities, we will fight it in our counties. We will fight it. We believe at the end of the day people will see who is fighting for them--who is fighting for them. I am going to read a couple of letters from my State. My State is the largest State in the Union. Planned Parenthood provides care for more than 750,000 women. Listen to this woman. Planned Parenthood is the only health care I have ever used. ``Ever,'' she says. I don't have health insurance. So when I get sick, I get over it as soon as possible so I can go back to work. Planned Parenthood has provided me with the only health care coverage I can afford, pelvic exams, STD testing, birth control. It isn't much, but can you imagine the millions of people who rely on Planned Parenthood suddenly living their lives without these basic services? She answers her own question: ``It is shameful.'' It is shameful. That is a letter from Sonja Kodimer. I have other letters from women in my great State. Three million Americans get care at Planned Parenthood. Three- quarters of them have income below 150 percent of the Federal poverty level. They rely on Planned Parenthood--many of them do--as their own only health care. By the way, the other rider we have to vote on is to defund health care reform. My colleagues have said it. Senator Mikulski worked night and day with the late and great and extraordinary Ted Kennedy to get us to the point where finally we are telling the insurance companies: No, you cannot charge women thirty, forty, fifty percent more for the same coverage as a man. By the way, being a woman is not a preexisting condition. And you cannot deny a woman who had a Caesarian health care coverage. If you are a victim of domestic violence, that is not a preexisting condition. That is what we repaired in the bill in addition to many other things we did. They want to give the shaft to women and their families, and we are not going to stand for it. Barbara Haya from Oakland wrote to me. She said that when she was a student with limited funds, she was denied health insurance because of a preexisting condition. Planned Parenthood was Barbara's only source of basic health care services. When she needed cancer screening, Planned Parenthood was there. She says please don't cut any funding to Planned Parenthood because without them she would not have her health care. Let's be clear. Nationwide, 97 percent of the services Planned Parenthood provides have nothing to do with abortion. They do not use a dime. It is illegal. It has never happened for that 3 percent, that is private funding. So don't stand up and say this is about abortion. It has nothing to do with it. As a matter of fact, if they have their way--this is a fact--and women do not get birth control, we will see more unintended pregnancies. We will see more abortions. That is just the fact. So anyone who votes to defund Planned Parenthood, A, is denying essential health care services to women and their families, and, B, their policy will lead to more unintended pregnancies and more abortions. So, yes, we stand here strong. Maybe some of us are five feet or under even in a couple of cases, but that belies our determination and our strength. We stand here united. And we say to the people of this country, you can count on us because we will be here as long as it takes to protect women and their families, and we will not allow women and their families to be held hostage. It is over. It is over. I thank Senator Murray and Senator Mikulski. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I wish to express my strong support for California Superior Court Judge John A. Kronstadt, as the Senate prepares to vote on his confirmation to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Judge Kronstadt was recommended to the President by my colleague, Senator Feinstein, and will be a great addition to the Federal bench. Judge Kronstadt has had a distinguished career. After graduating from Yale Law School, he served as a Federal law clerk for Judge Gray on the Central District of California. With his confirmation, Judge Kronstadt will be returning to the same court where he served as a clerk. Following his clerkship, he was in private practice, specializing in complex litigation, antitrust, copyright and securities. Since 2002, Judge Kronstadt has served as a superior court judge in Los Angeles. I congratulate Judge Kronstadt and his family on this important day, and urge my colleagues in the Senate to join in voting to confirm this highly qualified nominee to the Federal bench.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent the period for morning business for debate only be extended until 8 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each, and the majority leader to be recognized at 8 p.m.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I came over here at this very precarious moment, hours away from a possible shutdown, to basically say there is absolutely no reason to shut this government down, absolutely no reason. Why? Because both sides agree that we need to cut the budget. Both sides agree that we need to reduce the deficit. When the debate got started, the Republicans put out a number and, guess what. We came to their number. We came all the way to their number. Then they said, whoops, no, we don't like that, we are going to go to a bigger number. We said we are worried because, as my friend from North Dakota said, we care about job creation, and Mark Zandi, the key economic adviser to John McCain's campaign, said if you do what the Republicans want to do, that is the Republicans in the House on H.R. 1, that will cost 700,000 jobs. Can you believe that? After we are finally coming out of this recession--thank the Lord God we had a quarter of a million new jobs last month--and here they are going to take a meat axe to this budget and according to outside experts going to destroy the economic recovery and set us right back into a recession. So we said hold off here, we believe we need to be wise about this. We went to your number that you originally put out there. Why do you keep moving the goal posts? They said: Well, that is the way it is. We moved the goal posts. Take it or leave it. We said all right, we are going to go back and we are going to go as far in your direction as we possibly can do and not jeopardize jobs. We went back and here is where we are. We went 78 percent of the way to the Republican new number. Here is the deal. I want the American people to be the judge of this. There was an election in 2010. The Republicans won big in the House and they took it over, so they run the House. The Democrats retained control of the Senate. I know very much about it because I was one of those seats that was being watched. We kept control of the Senate and of course the President is a Democrat and he is there for a couple of years. Of course some of us hope for a lot longer, but here is the deal: Out of the three parties to the negotiations, Republicans control one-third of the government and Democrats two-thirds. We did not look at our Republican friends and say we control much more than you do, so we will only go a third of the way to you. We were willing to give and give and to look at expenditures that we believe are key, and we said we are willing to give some of this up, and we marched over to their side 78 percent of the way. If I stopped someone in the street, a person who maybe did not have much experience about beltway politics, and I said if you were negotiating with two of your friends and they saw something their way and you saw it your way and they came 78 percent of the way to what you wanted, what would you do? I think the average person would say: Hurray, let's get this done. Well, that is what I say tonight. Let's get this done. There is no reason to shut down the Federal Government when we have come--the Democrats have come, by way of cuts, 78 percent of the way to our Republican friends. But let me tell you the bad news. It turns out this is not what the fight is about at all. At the eleventh hour, our Republican friends are holding this country hostage to an agenda which is about cutting women's health care. Now, you may say: Could you say that again, Senator Boxer. What? Yes, this debate over the budget, where we have come 78 percent of the way and made painful cuts, is not about budget cutting; it is about women's health. Let me tell you specifically what it is about. It is about a women's health care program known as title X. I am sure people are saying: What is that? It is very simple. In 1970, a Republican President named Richard Nixon signed this bill. And do you know who voted for it in the House? President George Herbert Walker Bush. We are talking about a bipartisan bill to give women the health care they need. And the Republicans, to date, have moved so far away from their own legacy, from their own history, that they are off the charts in extreme land somewhere. I want to share one reason women use these title X clinics as their first line of health. And by the way, millions of women do--and men-- because they get help for high blood pressure, diabetes checks, they get help for breast cancer screening, they get help for pelvic exams, they get help for sexually transmitted diseases, HIV/AIDS testing, referrals for additional medical screening and diagnostic testing, blood screening, smoking cessation, cholesterol screening, infertility counseling, and, if asked for, birth control, which, when it is counseled in the right way, birth control will prevent unwanted pregnancies and therefore bring down the number of abortions. Somebody explain to me how our country is better off when our American families are shut out of health care, health care that is so cost-effective, that for every dollar that is spent through the title X health care program, which goes to local clinics--and 75 percent of the funding does not go to Planned Parenthood. Can we be clear here? Planned Parenthood gets 25 percent and does a fabulous job. But the fact is, not one penny can ever be used for abortion or people could go to jail. There is no money in here for abortion, period, end of quote. It is because of the Hyde amendment--I know this because I was in the House of Representatives when we dealt with the Hyde amendment. We said there ought to be an exception for rape and incest, OK? So I personally know the Hyde amendment is the law of the land. So if anyone tells you they are closing down the government because of abortion, it has nothing to do with abortion. It has to do with mainstream health care for women and their families. So here we are. We have come 78 percent of the way to them on cuts. By the way, they announced last night that was it. We agreed that was fine. But now we don't have an agreement. I have my fingers crossed that at 8 o'clock, the majority leader will say that we have overcome our problems; that he will say we go back to agreeing on the number that was agreed to last night. It is well above $70 billion. Remember, we cut that out in just the next 5 months or so. That is a big bite, but we all know we have to reduce the deficit. But I hope our Republican friends have backed off from this, backed off of them completely shutting down and eliminating a women's health care program used by their families, and men, 5 million of them. It is cost-effective. It provides $4 of benefits for every dollar invested. Mr. President, 4,500 clinics, 75 percent of them non-Planned Parenthood, 25 percent of them Planned Parenthood; none used for abortion, all used for health care. I hope they will back off and say: You know what, we have reflected on this. We have read this. We know the health care our people are getting at home. We checked it out. We called our district. We called our State. And we have decided to come off of this crazy idea, and we will stand with Richard Nixon and we will stand with George Herbert Walker Bush, who supported title X. I can't imagine how our Republican friends would rather shut down the government than to continue this health care program. I cannot imagine why they would rather take paychecks away from our hard-working men and women in uniform and others who are cleaning up Superfund sites, who are working to deliver veterans' benefits, who are working to keep our parks open. Why would they take paychecks away from those people because they do not want to continue breast cancer screening to women? Speaking of paychecks, you have to know that the Senate unanimously passed a bill that said that if we fail to keep the government open, we do not get paid because, guess what, Members of Congress get paid by a special statute. Everybody else does not get their paycheck, but we get our paycheck. We sent this offer to Speaker Boehner. Do you know what happened to it? I do not know what happened to it. I do not know what happened to it. It would take him 2 minutes right now to bring it up. So if he is watching this--I guess he is not, but if he were, I would say: Just take 5 minutes and go to your Rules Committee and bring this bill up and let America know that you, Mr. Boehner, and your colleagues who are ready to shut this government down will not get a paycheck. I am so tired of the hypocrisy around this place. I really am. One of the comments from a Congressman over there--he was complaining. He said: I do not make enough. Mr. President, $174,000. He does not make enough. I cried for him. But I have to say this: Where are his tears for his staffers? Where are his tears for the military who are not going to get paid? Where are his tears for his people cleaning up Superfund sites and for the guy out here on the Mall? There is the biggest day for our national park, the biggest week, the biggest month--April. Some 800,000 people come from all over the world to go to our national park, many for the Cherry Blossom Festival. Some people already may be here for that--kids, families. These hotels are booked. The restaurants are booked. Where are this Congressman's tears for the people whose family vacations were destroyed? Maybe they can't get back their airfare. Neighborhood restaurants here may lose money this week, and the hotels. In my State, we have Yosemite National Park. If you go there, you will be transformed into another world and another place. I tell you, the first time I ever stepped out there in that valley, my heart almost dropped from the beauty from what God has given us. That experience could be shut down in this shutdown. I am not making a choice between Yosemite and the 46 clinics in the Central Valley who get title X funding, 46 clinics that see hundreds and hundreds of patients in need of health care. I am not going to choose. I am going to say: Keep this government open. What is your problem with women? What is your problem with giving women the health care they deserve? What happened in your life that you do not understand that a woman who gets an early breast cancer screening can have her life saved? What is wrong with you over there? A Pap smear. I am sure that if it were your daughter, if it were your wife, oh my God, you would do anything to get them to the doctor to make sure they were healthy. Where is your voice for these 5 million women? I have to say that I am baffled on this one. This is not about abortion. I already said that. Not one dollar goes to abortion. I have to say that the Republicans would rather close all of our national parks and they would rather suspend tax refunds for hard- working Americans than give cervical screenings to women and provide HIV and STD testing for men and women. You know, they are going to close the Small Business Administration, and that hurts our small businesses and that hurts jobs. They are going to close down the mortgages from FHA, which backs about a third of new mortgages. So if you are finally coming out of this mess and you have bought a house, about a third of new mortgages are backed by them, so you are stuck in your tracks. If you are trying to sell a house and you thought you had it done, you now have to put it off. I have to say that to do this at any time is ridiculous, but to do this because you do not want women to get health care is a sin. To do this in a time of three wars makes no sense at all. Food and drug inspections. We know what happens when particularly our kids get sick because there is some kind of foodborne illness. No more inspections. Closed down. So I am saying once again, to sum it up in the best way I can, yes, no question, we had an election, and the Republicans won the House. And there are three parties to this agreement: the Senate, controlled by Democrats; the White House, controlled by Democrats; and a Republican House. So the Republicans control one-third of the government that is making this decision. We have come 78 percent their way because we know we have to make painful cuts. We are mindful of that. We are not standing in our corner with our blankie and our teddy bear with our finger in our mouth saying: Please, leave us alone. We are willing. We are willing to go their way. And they have not--well, they have moved the other way. In other words, we met their number, and then they made a new number. We met that number, and then they made a new number. Now we are 78 percent to the new number. Please, we do not have to shut down this government. What a waste. What a ridiculous waste. In my State, I would urge my Republican friends who want to shut down the title X women's health program, visit the St. Johns Well Child and Family Center in Los Angeles. Find out about their work. Find out about the good work they do for the people there. Call Our Savior Center in El Monte, CA. They receive title X funds too. Find out about the work they do. Call the Good Samaritan Family Resources Center in San Francisco. Find out about the good work they do with title X funding. Think about your legacy as a Republican--Richard Nixon signing this proudly, George H.W. Bush voting for it in the House. This is a bipartisan women's health care program. There is no need to shut down the government because you want to stop funding a program that helps our people, that is cost-effective, that stops the spread of disease. How they could do this is beyond me. I ask the people of America who may be watching this debate and hearing about these issues--it is time now. There are a few hours. Let's flood Speaker Boehner's phones. Let's e-mail all the leaders, Democratic and Republican, and say: OK. It is time to end this standoff. The last thing I want to bring up is this: I have been in politics a long time. I love public service. It is in my bones. I have watched sometimes what I call an overreach. It sometimes happens by Republicans and sometimes by Democrats. What I am seeing across this country is an overreach by the far right of the Republican Party which is driving the Republican Party agenda. We saw it in Wisconsin. There we had a Governor who came to the microphone with tremendous support, newly elected. He said: We have a budget problem, and we are going to have to make some tough decisions. Everyone nodded and said: Yes. He said: These unions that represent the workers, they better come to the table because if they don't, I am going to have to take some steps to reduce their salaries and all the rest. The unions said: OK. We will come to the table. The unions came to the table. Guess what they said. We will give up on every dollar you have asked us to do. The Governor said: Really? Really? Then he said: Fine. I will make those cuts, and I am taking away your bargaining rights forever. That was an overreach. What we are doing is responding to Republicans who said: We have a deficit problem, and we need your help. We said: Yes. And we came to the table. We met them at their number. Then they increased their number. We said: OK, we will come a little more. As of last night, we came 78 percent of the way. They agreed last night. Now it turns out, just like in Wisconsin, it wasn't about the numbers. It was about some kind of an agenda that would throw women under the bus. I am here to say that isn't going to happen. There isn't one Democrat in our Democratic caucus, male or female, from one side of our party to the other--and, believe me, we have a big range of philosophies--not one of them is willing to say this program ought to go because they know it is saving women's lives. As Harry Reid, our leader, said today at a press conference: Someday I may not be around to help my kids and my grandkids. I will not be here forever to help them. What if things go wrong and they have to go to a clinic and they have to get that mammogram. There is only one clinic that does it, though, and that is the one in Texas. But they have screenings. What if you have to have that Pap smear. What if you need that referral for further testing? What if you need to get help because you have diabetes and you don't have health insurance and you go to that clinic and they help you. Harry Reid said: We are here today not only about today but about tomorrow. Here is a program that has lasted since 1970. Count the decades, folks. We are not going to end a program that has its roots in bipartisanship, that has its roots in caring about our fellow human beings. It isn't necessary. A budget is about a budget is about a budget. It isn't about somebody's political vendetta. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.