Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to recognize the extraordinary legacy of the late retired Riverside Superior Court Judge Victor Miceli, who passed away on September 16, 2010. He was a champion of justice, leader of city restoration projects, and preserver of the history of the city of Riverside, CA--his adopted hometown for which he worked diligently for nearly half a century. After graduating from the University of Pittsburgh Law School in 1952 and serving as the judge advocate general in the U.S. Army, Vincent Miceli relocated to Riverside in 1961. He opened a private civil practice, which he maintained until he was appointed by Governor George Deukmejian to the Superior Court in 1986. Throughout his tenure, during which he served as a presiding judge, he rendered decisions in many high-profile cases, including those involving local politics, city growth, and environmental issues. Judge Miceli's civic involvement included establishing Federal and State appellate courthouses in downtown Riverside, shaping this area as a justice center enhanced by $100 million in new construction. He also spearheaded restoration of the historic 1903 Beaux Arts courthouse on the city's Main Street and contributed to the restoration and preservation of the city's historic Evergreen Cemetery. In the words of retired appellate Judge John Gabbert: ``His contributions to the City and County of Riverside have just been beyond measure.'' I extend my heartfelt condolences to Judge Miceli's family, friends, and colleagues. He will be truly missed.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, it is with a heavy heart that I ask my colleagues to join me today in honoring the memory of Richard Goldman, a visionary philanthropist and extraordinary civic leader. Richard was a successful businessman whose dedication to his global community improved the lives of millions. Richard passed away peacefully at his home in San Francisco on November 29, 2010. He was 90 years old. Richard Goldman was born on April 16, 1920, in San Francisco, CA. He grew up just down the street from his future wife, Rhoda Haas. Richard attended the University of California at Berkeley before serving 4 years in the U.S. Armed Forces. In 1946, Richard returned to San Francisco and shortly thereafter reconnected with Rhoda, a descendant of Levi Strauss, who served on the board of directors of both the apparel company and the Levi Strauss Foundation. Richard and Rhoda were married within the year. In 1949, Richard founded Goldman Insurance Services, a major San Francisco brokerage firm that was sold to Willis Insurance in 2001. In 1951, Goldman and his wife Rhoda Haas Goldman created the Goldman Fund, which has since then given more that half a billion dollars to a range of philanthropic causes in the bay area, nationally, and internationally. The Goldman Fund recently made a $10,000,000 grant to the San Francisco Symphony and a $3,600,000 grant to the Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy for the restoration of Lands End, a 1.6-mile coastal hiking trail with views of the Golden Gate Bridge and the Marin Headlands. The Goldmans focused their philanthropic efforts on the arts, cultural institutions, Jewish affairs, and of course, the environment. As an expression of their lifelong commitment to environmental protection, Richard and Rhoda launched the Goldman Prize in 1990. Each year, up to seven individuals from each of the six inhabited continental regions of the world are selected to receive the $150,000 prize. Goldman Environmental Prize winners are announced each year in April, to coincide with Earth Day. Recipients participate in a 10-day tour of San Francisco and Washington, DC; an award ceremony in each city; and many opportunities to meet with elected and environmental leaders, news media, and other dignitaries. In addition to financial support, the prize provides invaluable opportunities for prize winners to raise awareness about the issue they are combating, and attract worldwide visibility for the work they're doing to address it. The prize has always been intended to honor grassroots environmental heroes who are involved in local efforts to protect the world's precious natural resources. Richard and Rhoda created an environmental legacy that has reached all corners of the globe. The Goldman Prize has been awarded to a range of activists around the world from Swaziland to Romania, working on issues from shark finning to uranium mining. It has become the world's largest prize program for grassroots environmental activists, attracting intense international media attention. The Goldman Environmental Prize has a lasting impact; recipients continue their work long after the award ceremonies have ended and the public spotlight has dimmed. Many have gone on to win election or appointment to public office or to expand the reach and impact of their work in other ways. The 1991 Goldman Prize winner from Africa, Wangari Maathai, became the first African woman to win the Nobel Peace Prize. In 2004, Ms. Matthai won the Nobel for her dedication to the environment, human rights, and peace.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank Senator Durbin for his eloquent remarks. I urge everyone who wants to get a full understanding of this issue of don't ask, don't tell to read his remarks. I would only say, if you sum it up, what my colleague has told us is that ending don't ask, don't tell will make us a stronger nation because we will have the unqualified support of people who are serving in the military in a situation where they have to hide who they are. This can't be good. Many of them are thrown out of the military. Frankly, if we do this, it means we are listening to the American people, a strong majority of whom support ending don't ask, don't tell; and listening to Secretary Gates, our Defense Secretary, who tells us he supports repeal; and listening, frankly, to the members of the military who have taken a survey and over 70 percent of them say we should end don't ask, don't tell. It is hard to understand why this is not being done. Senator Durbin is right. If it is done by the courts--which, by the way, I want it to be done by everyone, courts included--but if it is done by the courts before we deal with it, it means there will be more of a rush to change things, and it will take a lot of the control out of the hands of the Defense Secretary so he can phase in this change in policy. I have to say, as someone who way back in 1993 spoke out against this policy and offered an amendment to keep it out of the rules and out of the law, I tried to say let's just leave it up to the military and not have a congressional statement on it--I offered that amendment. I don't know, we got how many votes--about 12 or 13 votes at the time. Imagine all those years ago I was so blessed to be here then to speak out against this policy, and now I am here at a time when we can finally end it. What that means is we are moving civil rights forward. In this great Nation of ours we have a lot of ups and downs, we have a lot of disagreements, we have a lot of open debate, as it should be as a democracy. But at the end of the day, we always expand freedom. We always expand equality. We started off with only White men of property could vote, when we started off as a nation. It was a big struggle to get the African- American vote. It was a big struggle to get the women's vote. Then we extended the age downward so we had the 18-year-old vote because we had people going to war and they couldn't vote, so we expanded that. This is a country that includes our people. This policy runs counter to that whole notion of inclusion. In fact, it makes people who are willing to die for their country lie about who they are. We want to stop that policy, at least the vast majority of the American people do--the Secretary of Defense does, the majority of the people in the military do. We have a couple of people on the other side of the aisle, frankly, who keep raising the bar. They said we will end this don't ask, don't tell when we have a survey. Then the survey came out and they said: You know what. We didn't like the survey. Let's have another survey. What are they going to do, keep designing different surveys until the answer comes back the way they want it? Come on. That is wrong. That is holding back something so important that we have to do. We have a chance to stand up for civil rights and human rights and I don't want to give it away to the courts. I hope the courts continue to rule the way they have. By the way, the courts have been, to me, eloquent on the point. But we ought to be eloquent as well. Here we are in a postelection session called a lameduck, but this is no reason for us to be lame, and there is no reason for us to be limping out of this session. We can do some good things. I am here today to look at where we are, what we have done, what we have to do, and what I hope we will do. Let me say we did do one positive: We did pass the Food Safety Modernization Act by a vote of 73 to 25. One Senator held it up and held it up. We know thousands of our people die every year of foodborne illness. This was a no-brainer. This was easy. The industry itself wanted to do this. We had to have a big fight and cloture votes and the rest of it. At the end of the day we passed it, and I am grateful and, believe me, many people in our country will be grateful when they see the changes that will be put in place. We are increasing the number of FDA inspections at foreign and domestic facilities to make sure our food is safe before we have an outbreak of a disease. And it will allow removal of contaminated food from store shelves far faster by enhancing the tracking and tracing of high-risk foods. It is going to mean the FDA has clear mandatory recall authority. We have more surveillance systems out there. So this is going to lead to a healthier nation. Then we got a letter from the Republicans, my friends, and they said: We are not voting on one more thing until you extend tax cuts for all Americans. So, listen, we did that. The Democrats passed two--not one but two versions of tax cuts for every single American. One said: We will make sure those tax cuts stay in place for the first $250,000 of income. That passed with a majority. We needed 60 because our friends filibustered. We got 53. Then we had another version that said: Let the tax cuts continue for up to $1 million of income. Just so people understand what that means, it means we gave tax cuts to every single American, every single one, and we gave a bonus tax cut to people earning up to $1 million, an additional tax cut. That was not enough for my Republican friends. They brought down those two bills that meant tax cuts for everyone because they want a bonus for people earning over $1 million. Let me tell you how many people there are in this country--307 million Americans. Let me tell you how many Americans earn more than $1 million--315,000. That is one- tenth of 1 percent. My Republican friends voted no on a bill that gave every American a tax cut but stopped a bonus tax cut for 315,000 families who earn over $1 million. Not only that, they said: We are not going to do one more thing in this Senate until we get that tax cut for those people. Give me a break. Give me a break. I read into the Record a letter signed by 90 millionaires. Do you know what they said? Thanks, but no thanks. We do not want this extra tax money. Do it up to $1 million. After that, it is a waste. We are not going to spend it in the economy. We are not going to stimulate this economy. Give it to everybody else, not us. But, oh, no. Oh, no. They voted no. And they are stopping everything. You know, a lot of people complain because there is debate going on between the two major parties. I understand it. We have to get things done, and we do. But every once in a while, it is good for the American people to see who is fighting for whom. And put me down as fighting for 99.9 percent of the American people. Put them down as fighting for one- tenth of 1 percent of the American people. This is unreal. People said: You have to meet the Republicans halfway. Absolutely. That is why I said I would vote to retain the tax cuts for people up to $1 million. We talked about it just being the first $250,000. We moved to $1 million. That covered almost everybody. They will not meet us an inch of the way. We went all of the way over here, and they will not meet us here at all. It would require a little baby step. So where are we? You see us. We are not voting on anything, folks, because they voted down the tax cuts and now they will not do anything else. And let me tell you some of the things they have already stopped. They have already stopped help for the unemployed. Two million Americans in this Christmas season, this Hanukkah season, are not going to get their unemployment benefits that they paid for through insurance. They are hard-working people. I read their stories into the Record, and I hope people will look at those stories. They touch your heart. We have veterans who cannot get a job. We have single moms who cannot get work. We have children saying: I cannot go to college now because my family is unemployed; I have to quit college and go back to work. And $300 a week is the benefit. That is what they stopped on the other side so they could get $460,000 a year in tax cuts, additional, for people who earn $10 million. Think about that. Think about that. They stopped $300 a week going to the long-term unemployed, not the ones who have reached the 99 weeks--after that, they do not have any more--just to get them up to that 99 weeks, if necessary. They blocked $300 a week because they are very upset about the cost. Yet they are fighting for a tax cut of $460,000 a year extra to someone earning $10 million a year, adding hundreds of billions of dollars to the deficit. They don't care about that. They don't care about paying for that. Oh, they do care about paying for the extension of unemployment insurance. So every once in a while, when people get upset and they say the parties are battling, trust me, every once in a while it is worth the fight. Every once in a while it is worth the fight because our country is worth the fight, because our middle class is worth the fight, because our working people are worth the fight. This is where we stand. Look at this. We are doing no legislative business because everything is being held hostage for the millionaires and the billionaires, the top one-tenth of 1 percent of the people. Just read the letter the Republicans sent us. They said they would not compromise. We said: We will give you the first $1 million of income, a lower tax. That was not good enough. That was not good enough. They want every penny over $1 million to get that tax break. So talk about the party of no--the GOP is the n-o-p-e party. Here are some other things they blocked and they are blocking. How could we ever forget 9/11? I certainly can't. No American can ever forget it. And who could ever forget the heroes who went down and worked to clear the debris, the toxic debris from 9/11. They went down to find survivors, then they went down to find remains. They never thought about themselves. The Bush EPA said the air was safe. They went down there, and they are sick, and we need to help them. We have a bill that passed the House. The Republicans are blocking it to fight for tax breaks for the people who earn over $1 million, for the people who earn $1 billion. Right now, they say we can't do any other work. They have stopped the START treaty, a treaty supported by none other than George Schultz, Henry Kissinger, Howard Baker, all very well-respected Republicans. Those Republicans turned their backs on those Republicans because they are fighting for the top one-tenth of 1 percent of earners in this country, and we can't make our country safe. We have no inspectors on the ground in Russia. We need to inspect their nuclear program. I remember asking all of our national security people what is their biggest fear. Republicans, Democrats, all of them. Do you know what they said? A terrorist getting hold of a nuclear weapon. We have to do inspections and make sure that nuclear arsenal is safe from terrorists. Oh, no, we can't do that because the people who earn over $1 million need more tax help. Thank you. That is the answer from the other side. We are now ready to give $250 back to Social Security recipients who didn't get a cost-of-living adjustment. As far as I know, that is being stopped. Nothing is happening here. We want to help our firefighters, these heroes, negotiate so they can get the benefits they deserve. Oh, no, that is being held up. I can tell you personally that they held up the unemployment benefits I talked about before because I made a unanimous consent request to get those unemployment benefits out there. Oh, no. Senator Barrasso: I object. I don't want these benefits going to the people who have been on unemployment benefits for more than 99 weeks. I said: Well, wait a minute, my friend--he is my friend--we are not doing anything for people longer than 99 weeks; we are just trying to make sure that up to 99 weeks you have help. Oh, he still objected. They want to pay for it. But they don't want to pay for the benefits to the millionaires. It is going to lose us hundreds of billions of dollars and add to our debt. This is a time to show the difference between the parties. This is postelection. There is no election until a couple of years from now. Let's just show the difference. This is nothing to do with voting; these are the true colors of the parties. It is important that people understand we cannot do the business of this country. We have a significant number of clean water bills to help the Chesapeake Bay, to help the San Francisco Bay, to clean the waterways, to help the Great Lakes. We voted them out of our committee, the Environment Committee. I am proud to chair that committee, so proud. They are not even controversial. We didn't even have barely a ``no'' vote from anybody on either side of the aisle. We can't get that done either. Don't ask, don't tell--you heard Senator Durbin talk about that. It is attached to the Defense bill. The Defense bill is critical. We are in two wars. Whether you support those wars or not, we support the troops and want to get them what they need. The don't ask, don't tell repeal is in there, and we can't get that done. Let me tell you something else we have not been able to get done--the DREAM Act. I wish to talk about that, and I want to put a human face on it, so I am going to tell you some stories about it. I am going to tell you the stories, and then I am going to tell you what the bill is we want to do. I am going to show you a picture of this handsome young man who is the drum major of the UCLA Bruin Marching Band. Anyone who knows anything about universities knows UCLA is a great university. If you want to get into UCLA, you have to be darn smart. You have to be at the top. David Cho is very smart. He is the drum major of the UCLA Bruin Marching Band, and every week he leads them as they cheer on the Bruins in the Rose Bowl. Here is a beautiful picture of him. Last weekend, the Bruins hosted their crosstown rivals from USC at the Rose Bowl, and you might have seen David on your TV screen Saturday night. There at the 50-yard line of the most iconic football stadium in America, leading the Bruin Marching Band as they played ``Sons of Westwood,'' was David Cho, the face of this team and their cheerleaders and the face of the DREAM Act. David is a senior at UCLA studying international economics. He has a 3.6 GPA at UCLA. That is not easy. In his free time, he tutors local high school students. If ever we saw it, this is Americana--a smart, motivated leader in the community, giving back. What is the problem with David? He was born in Korea. He came here on a family visa with his parents when he was 9 years old. His family spent 8 years trying to navigate their way to legalized status. They found out their sponsor erred in filling out the paperwork. They tried and tried and could never fix it. David did not learn he wasn't an American citizen until he started applying to college. He writes: I feel like I'm living inside an invisible prison cell. I want to serve in the Air Force . . . I want to attend the Kennedy School of Government. I dream of becoming a U.S. Senator because I want to serve and change this country for the better. This is the American Dream I want to achieve, but I am unable to fulfill it because of my status. Years ago, when the Republicans were in charge of the Senate, a bill came out called the DREAM Act. It would say to these young people who are here without the proper papers, not because they did anything wrong but because their parents did, they grew up thinking they are American, America is their home, some came at 6 months, some came at 2 years, some came at 4 years, David came at 9 years--it sets them on a path, if they hold up their average in school, if they join the military. The military wants this bill passed. They call it a recruiter's dream. We have many other stories, and I will quickly go through a few. I ask unanimous consent to speak for an additional 5 or 6 minutes.

Mrs. BOXER. Pedro Ramirez is the student body president of Fresno State University. He is studying political science and agricultural economics. He is another face of the DREAM Act. His parents brought him to the United States When he was 3 years old. Did Pedro know he was doing anything wrong at 3? Nor did David know he was doing anything wrong at 9. Pedro discovered he was in this country illegally, again, when he began applying to college when he was 18. His immigration status became public knowledge when an anonymous e-mail to the Fresno Bee detailed how he was forced to waive a small stipend the university provides to its student president. He had to waive that. Pedro is paying his tuition with private scholarships and by mowing lawns. This is what he writes: The DREAM Act itself symbolizes what it is to be an American, which is our goal. We want to contribute to the United States, and utilize the degrees and skills we gained, to make it a better place. Now let's look at Maria Duque, 19 years old. She is the vice president of student government at Fullerton College. When she was 5 years old, she moved to Los Angeles from Ecuador with her parents who were seeking a better life for their children. As a high school student, she finished sixth in her class with a 4.4 grade point average. I don't know how one gets over 4; I guess by doing bonus work and getting an A-plus-plus. This is what we are talking about. She was also student body president, yearbook editor, and a newspaper editor. At Fullerton College, Maria's excellent record continued. She has a 3.9 GPA. She volunteers at a nonprofit organization that helps low-income high school students prepare for college. She was accepted into top universities but is unable to afford to attend them because she does not qualify for student aid. On weekends she sings in public arenas asking for donations to help her afford tuition. How do we make our country better when our laws don't recognize students such as these? Who could answer that question for me? How do we make our country better when we don't help students such as these? She hopes to transfer to UC-Berkeley or UCLA and complete her double major in political science and history. Then she wants to go to law school. She wants to continue her work helping others pull themselves out of poverty. She is another face of the DREAM Act. She writes: My bachelor's diploma, my masters and law degree in the future will only be a piece of paper. It might tell of my accomplishments, but I will not be able to use it to help others in this country which I consider my home. She came here at 5 years old. She doesn't know anything else but America. She says that DREAM Act students ``are like any other young person in the [U.S.], aspiring to do more for society, our fellow neighbors, and our home, the United States of America. The DREAM Act is . . . a source of hope. Lastly, Luis Perez. He graduated in May from UCLA school of law, the first undocumented student to do so. Luis is another face of the DREAM Act. Brought to the United States by his parents at the age of 9, he has lived in this country for 20 years. He grew up in an area infested by gangs and drugs, and he rose way above those distractions and dangers. He went to community college. He transferred to UCLA where he earned a degree in American government, and he went to UCLA law. That is such a hard school to get into. He has worked side jobs to help pay for room and board. Tell me, somebody, how does it make our country a better place when we turn our backs on these students? He writes: May 7th marked my graduation from UCLA law school. I am now forced to look beyond the joy of graduation. Instead I must now reassess my current situation, as I am deprived the luxury of making long-term plans. I have done and continue to do everything within my means and ability until Congress does their part and passes the DREAM Act. I have faith that our Founding Fathers entrusted us with the legislative process to make just laws. I am living the American Dream. I am a living example of what education, opportunity, and community support can produce regardless of challenges and disadvantages. I have learned firsthand that it is only during times of adversity that we have the opportunity to be a leader and show true courage. As I acknowledge the difficulties with immigration reform, I am hopeful that this Congress will give me the opportunity to fulfill my Dream; after all, being an American really means to stand up for what's right, even when we are standing alone. This is a bill that has had bipartisan support over many years. It started in 2001. I have statements from my Republican friends about how important this bill is and why. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record quotes from my Republican colleagues.

Mrs. BOXER. We have a situation where people were brought to this country by their parents. The kids had nothing to say in the matter. They grew up thinking they were Americans. They did everything American kids do, and they excelled. They went to the top. This bill is crafted in such a careful way that essentially we are taking the cream of the crop and giving them a path to legality, a path so their hopes and dreams can be realized and, therefore, they will help this Nation realize its hopes and dreams. I strongly urge my colleagues to listen to the students in their States who are desperate to earn a chance for this dream. They are here in Washington, and they are going to various offices. They love their country. Never before in U.S. history have we punished children for the actions of their parents. To deny these students an opportunity to earn the dream would be a dark moment in our Nation's history, in my view. The American dream is real. It is not easy to attain. We have to work hard. We have to work hard always from the time we are a kid in school and we get our first job. Here we are talking about young people who excel. All they want to do is be able to reach their dream and help us move this country forward. This is the next generation of community leaders, the next generation of military leaders, the next generation of entrepreneurs. We don't punish children for the sins of their parents. We don't do that. That is wrong. Let us do the right thing. Every once in a while we have to say: We have to do the right thing. Is it a tough vote? Will some people ask, why are you doing that? Of course. But that is true about anything we do. We have so many golden opportunities to be on the right side of American history. We are presented them every day. We are presented them in this postelection session. We could end don't ask, don't tell. We could pass the DREAM Act. We can pass an unemployment benefits extension. We can help our firefighters. We can help our heroes from 9/ 11 get help with their illnesses, with their breathing problems, with their cancer problems. Let's not say no because the Democrats said: Yes, we will give everybody in this country a tax cut for the first $1 million of income and after that, we have to worry about the deficit. We go all the way up to $1 million, and we take care of everybody in this country. Everybody gets a tax cut. If one is over a million, they don't get their little bonus tax cut. We help reduce the deficit which is an issue absolutely on our agenda. Why would someone then say no to everything else, after we have met them all the way up to the $1 million level of income. It is unbelievable. America, pay attention. Pay attention to who is fighting for you and who is fighting for 315,000 of the richest families, many of whom say to us: Don't do this. It is more important to cure the deficit. Economists tell us at that level of wealth, they are not going to spend the money at the corner store. Look at Mark Zandi's comments, the Republican economic adviser to John McCain. He told us: You give out unemployment benefits, for every dollar, you increase economic activity by $1.61, because that money is spent right away at the corner store. You give huge, enormous tax breaks to people over $1 million, they are not going to spend it. They are going to put it in a trust fund. Let's put that money toward deficit reduction. For me, speaking for myself, this postelection session has been one of the most interesting I have ever seen. Because the true colors of the parties are coming out. I know people get very frustrated about our debates. They want us to come together. I want to come together. I went all the way to the Republican side and said: The first million of income will get a tax cut. Only over that, that one-tenth of 1 percent, let's put that to deficit reduction. And my Republican friends won't move that inch over to me and to us. At the same time they are blocking action on all those important bills I laid out. I wanted to lay this out for history. I think we sometimes forget. The battles we wage here tell the country who we are. I am very pleased to have this opportunity. I thank the people of California for giving me this opportunity again. It means a lot to me to be able to weigh in on these issues of the heart and soul of the country that I love so much as a first-generation American on my mother's side. I thank them for that. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I wish to say to Senator Dorgan how much I appreciated his comments, how he brings us back to the central question of why we are here and whom we are fighting for. I will miss him, and I wish him well. He is a person who gets to the heart of it. It is key for the American people who are watching this debate today to understand one basic fact. Because of their concern for one-tenth of 1 percent of those Americans earning over $1 million a year, the Republicans stopped a tax cut for everyone else. I need to repeat that. Because of their concern for those 315,000, out of 307 million Americans, who earn over $1 million a year, the Republicans, to a person, stopped a tax cut for 99.9 percent of the American people. I cannot tell my colleagues how bizarre that is to me. Not only did they block tax cuts for everyone except for that one-tenth of 1 percent, they also turned their backs on the unemployed, 2 million of whom have lost their benefits or are about to lose their unemployment benefits. In my State of California, 400,000 people are losing those benefits. They also blocked other important tax-cut extensions which I don't have the time to address. When we block an unemployment insurance extension which gives people about $300 a week to survive and keep their homes together, if they are actively looking for work and if they paid into the unemployment insurance system--those are the people we are helping--when that is blocked, we hurt not only their families, but we hurt the economy. Because it is very clear, from respected economists on both sides of the aisle, that unemployment benefits are a big fiscal stimulus. In fact, for every $1 we give someone, it turns into $1.61 back into the economy. Why? Because people spend the moneys in their communities, and the trickle-down effect works. When we give a tax break to the top people who are earning $10 million a year, they don't run down to the corner store with it. They put it in a trust fund for their kids. Clearly, either the Republicans don't understand what an economic stimulus is or they don't care. They certainly say they care about the deficit. But from the bottom of my heart, I ask: How could they care about the deficit when they say they want to give tax breaks to the wealthiest and not pay for them? Those tax breaks go on the backs of our kids and grandkids. It is unbelievable. The Republicans in this body today showed whose side they are on. It is clear. We had two proposals. One said, for the first $250,000 of income, the tax break will continue. We got 53 votes. By the way, as Senator McCaskill so noted, it used to be the majority ruled around here. They filibustered. They said: You guys have to get 60 votes for that. We got 53. We got a majority, not enough. That went down. We said: OK. We know there was an election. We will go up to $1 million. We will meet you at the corner. Let's shake hands. No, that wasn't enough. They want to fight for people who earn over $1 million a year. I wish everyone success. We all want to be very successful in life. So there isn't anything wrong with what I am about to say. But if you earn $10 million a year, the Republicans want to give you an additional $450,000 every year in a tax break, and they don't want to pay for it. What is interesting is, last month 90 millionaires wrote us a letter, and they talked about how they felt about giving these tax breaks to people earning over $1 million a year. Here is what they said: For the fiscal health of our nation and the well-being of our fellow citizens, we ask that you allow tax cuts on incomes over $1,000,000 to expire at the end of this year as scheduled. We make this request as loyal citizens who now or in the past earned an income of $1,000,000 per year or more. We have done very well over the last several years. Now, during our nation's moment of need, we are eager to do our fair share. We don't need more tax cuts, and we understand that cutting our taxes will increase the deficit and the debt burden carried by other taxpayers. The country needs to meet its fiscal obligations in a just and responsible way. Letting tax cuts for incomes over $1,000,000 expire is an important step in this direction. I ask unanimous consent to have this letter printed in the Record.

Mrs. BOXER. The letter hits on a key point. If we are serious about deficit reduction, then don't come to the floor and fight for the wealthiest Americans, many of whom say they are doing fine. If we are going to do it, tell us how you are going to pay for it. No, the rhetoric is: We are hurting the economy when we are helping 99.9 percent of Americans. We are hurting the economy when we talk about fiscal responsibility. We are hurting the economy. We are hurting small business. Let's be clear. As far as we can tell, not one small business over $1 million would be impacted. I know my friend in the chair is very concerned about small business because we talked about it and he studied this. He says, if we go up to 1 million, they are covered. So all their rhetoric is nonsense. We couldn't get one vote--not one. They voted not to reduce the deficit. They voted not to help 99.9 percent of the American people because of their deep, deep, deep worry and concern about people who earn over $1 million a year. They don't care about deficits, and they don't care about most of the people. I don't know what else to say. That is the vote we had. They say: We are going to come up with some grand compromise. Maybe. But I have lived for quite a while, and I can tell my colleagues, whenever I travel, when I go to the airport, if I have a flight but another flight is leaving, I jump on that first plane because you don't know how long you will be stuck. We have this in our hand, tax cuts for 99.9 percent of the American people, and they say: We will negotiate and come up with something. Maybe they will; maybe they won't. All I know is, the record will reflect they voted no today when they could have helped all those people. I will close by talking about juxtaposing whom they fight for versus who needs us to fight for them. I am going to read a couple stories from people in my State. Yesterday, I read about Laura from Long Beach. Today, I am going to read some other stories. I will not use last names. This is PJ from Palm Springs: My husband suffered a brain injury 2 years ago. He is on permanent disability. I lost my job as a paralegal in January. My benefits end this month. I have no way to pay our medical insurance. I will lose my house. I am trying to find a way to keep from becoming homeless with a disabled husband who is in constant need of medical care and 24/7 personal care. Please extend unemployment insurance. Adam from Santa Rosa: I am a 25-year-old lifelong California resident. I graduated from California State University. I found a good job in the science field. I was laid off 2 years later due to the poor economic climate and forced to get unemployment insurance. I have been desperately seeking work but to no avail, and my benefits have run out. I am currently the sole provider for my wife, two children and myself. And despite all of my efforts to find work, no opportunities have presented themselves. I am having trouble sleeping because I am so nervous about what will happen if we are left stranded without any source of income as we do not have much savings, and rent and living is expensive. I fear other citizens are in the same boat. So I am writing on my family's behalf as well as theirs in the hope that some further UI benefits could be made available for those families who are still suffering from unemployment and need the assistance. Tammie from Los Banos: My husband worked non-stop for 33 years. In 2009 his job was outsourced to Singapore. By the way, while we are talking about tax breaks, our side wants to end tax breaks to companies who ship jobs overseas. That side, my Republican friends--and this was a big issue in my campaign--want to keep those breaks going. Listen to Tammmie from Los Banos. Her husband worked nonstop for 33 years. He hasn't had any luck finding a job in California. Since his layoff, we have lost our home. We have sold off almost everything of value we have worked so hard for in our 32 years of marriage. Now he is on extended unemployment and that may be discontinued in December. Of course, right now it has been discontinued because our friends don't care about it one whit. We tried three, four, five, six, seven times to try and get them to go along with us on continuing this unemployment. By the way, not beyond 99 weeks, up to 99 weeks. We can't get their support. She writes: He is on extended unemployment and that may be discontinued in December during the holidays when this country needs to strengthen the economy not destroy it. We will have nowhere to live; I will lose my car that takes me 200 miles per day to my job. Please do not let this happen. This goes on and on.

Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent for 2 more minutes.

Mrs. BOXER. Tracie from Fresno: In July last year I lost my job. I am a single parent of two children. At first I made cuts by not eating out or spending money on things we didn't really need. Then I had to give up my car versus being homeless. Now we take the city bus to school in the morning and back home in the afternoon. I look for work daily. I am a college graduate and have worked for 20 years. I need the unemployment extension to keep a roof over our heads and to feed my children. It is a scary situation to not know if your life will be tossed upside down at the hands of people that do not even know who you are. Tracie, we know who you are. I am painfully aware of who you are and painfully aware that my colleagues on the other side, who say they care, didn't vote to help Tracie. Again, if ever there was a time to focus on the differences between the parties, it is now. Whom are we fighting for? Today it is clear. Our Republican friends, to a person--it pains me to say--stopped a tax cut for 99.9 percent of the American people, and they stopped the extension of unemployment benefits for people such as Tracie--good, hard-working, patriotic Americans, many of whose families served in the military. I hope for better days in this holiday season. We are not going to give up. We are going to stand and fight. We are going to stay here. But today was not a good day for 99.9 percent of the American people. I want them to know why. I hope, in this little time I have had, I have explained it so they do get it. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, the American people deserve to know why we are not legislating. We are all here, and we are not passing any bills, bills that are important to the American people; for example, a bill to keep the government operating. We are getting to the point where we are running out of time. We are not doing that today. A bill to authorize the Defense Department, here we are in the middle of two wars, we are not doing that bill. A bill to help victims of 9/11, the brave first responders who are suffering because they worked, some of them almost 24/7, in the debris that was so toxic to them, and I remember then EPA Administrator Whitman saying it was all fine, it was all safe, the air was OK. We need to help them. We are not doing that. A bill to help our firefighters, a bill to help firefighters have the dignity to be able to negotiate for their wages, a bill called the DREAM Act to help many productive young people join the military and go to college and help our country, we are not doing those either. We are doing nothing. We are not doing a bill to promote manufacturing that was offered by one of my colleagues. We are not doing a bill to give tax breaks to companies that hire unemployed workers. We are not doing a bill to end tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas. We are not doing the START treaty, a treaty that is endorsed by international experts from America on both sides of the aisle, including George Shultz, and people who worked for Ronald Reagan and George Bush. We are not doing that. All these bills, including the unemployment insurance extension, which is so critical, all that is being held hostage by my Republican friends who all wrote a letter and put their names on it. I am not making this up. It is in writing. They said they would do nothing until they won tax break bonuses for those who earn over $1 million, the millionaires and the billionaires. They are holding up all this important work. To me, it is shocking. I have heard of having an objection to a bill and having a strong moral objection to a bill and holding things up. They are holding up every single thing, as my friend, Senator Stabenow, has talked about for days now. Here is the point: Democrats have agreed to give every working American a tax break on their first $250,000 of income, every working American, up to the sky, a tax break on the first $250,000 of income. We even offered to go up to the first $1 million because some of our friends said: Oh, 250 isn't high enough. There are some small businesses in there. We investigated that, and 97 percent of small businesses would be protected with the $250,000 level. But if we go up to 1 million, all the small businesses are taken care of. We have expressed interest in going up to $1 million. Guess what. This is not enough for the Republicans in the Senate. They are fighting for those earning over $1 million, over $1 billion. It doesn't matter. They are holding everything hostage. Let's be clear. They are fighting, they are united, they are strong, they are adamant on behalf of the billionaires of this country, by the way, many of whom said: Please, we don't need any more tax breaks. We are doing great. So if ever people wanted to know which party fights for whom, this is it, folks. This is the clearest example I have ever seen in my life. Do you know that under the Republican plan a family earning $10 million a year--listen, $10 million a year--will get back, under their plan, $460,000 every single year? They are fighting for that. They say they care about the deficit. I do not see that because their position on tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires will add hundreds of billions of dollars to our deficit. But when you ask them whether they would be willing to help us to extend unemployment benefits to the workers who are caught in this deep, dark recession, they say: Oh, we can't afford it. So listen, they will not pay for the tax cuts to their millionaire, billionaire friends, but they insist on cutting the Federal budget to pay for extending unemployment insurance, which, as far as I know, has never been done before. It is an emergency funding, and it is, by the way, $50 billion compared to $400 billion. So I hope the American people--I know they have a lot of things to do, getting ready for the holidays and caring about families; unfortunately, many of them are worried this holiday; more than 400,000 workers in California will lose their unemployment benefits by the end of December--I hope they see who is fighting for them versus who is fighting for the millionaires and the billionaires. It is right out there. I could not believe that one of my colleagues from the other side of the aisle, from Massachusetts, was outraged that we tried to extend unemployment benefits. Why is he outraged? He should be outraged that more than 2 million workers nationwide will lose their benefits by the end of December. We just got a report that 7 million unemployed workers could be denied access to benefits by the end of next year, while my Republican friends are fighting to get $460,000 a year for someone who earns $10 million. They would allow 7 million unemployed workers in our country to go without benefits. Their proposal is: Well, let's cut a program. Well, ask any economist about that. That is harmful to an economic recovery. We know that for every $1 of unemployment insurance that gets spent, it has an impact of $1.61 to the economy because folks on unemployment are not like the $10 million-a-year family that is going to stick it in their trust fund; they are going to spend it in the corner grocery store, and that has a ripple effect throughout the economy. I wish to read to you a statement by Laura from Long Beach, one of my constituents. Today my parents' unemployment benefits expired. Today, I don't know how they're going to make it. I don't know what I'm going to do. This morning I woke up to hear that the Republicans in the Senate have signed a letter pledging not to allow anything to pass until Bush tax cuts are reinstated. These are the same tax cuts that only help people who are employed, excessively wealthy, and people who will never hire my dad, who is a hard worker--but nearing 60. He experienced losing his job when a lot of Americans did. Since then, he's been working low paying jobs at local businesses--businesses that little by little have had to cut back. Unfortunately, this usually means that they fire their newer employees--employees like my dad. Since losing his job, his 10 year old car has quit working, leaving him bereft of transportation and making it even more difficult to find a job. My mom isn't as healthy as she used to be and can't work because she needs to provide childcare for my sister, who works hectic hours in the healthcare industry. I'm currently in graduate school--the first of my family to graduate from college. My husband and I are debating whether or not I need to drop out so that I can help provide for my parents, who currently live out of state. Suffice it to say, when I read the news this morning, I broke down in tears. Let me divert. She heard about the letter from the Republicans saying they would do nothing until these tax cuts went in, and she broke down in tears. She said: My family has lived a hard life, and this just made it harder. But really, I'm crying because I can't believe that this is what my country has come to--or more importantly, this is what my father's country has come to. . . . . He was raised believing that this country was the best country in the world--that it would always look out for the best interest of its people. He served in the military, bought American cars, and worked at the same job for over 20 years. So as much as I am writing this letter because I'm upset about my own familial circumstances, I'm equally interested in writing you to remind you of the middle class-- and those of us who are slipping out of it. I have a number of other letters, but I know other colleagues are here. But no one could be more eloquent than Laura and I want to thank her and everybody else who wrote to me and I will come back again during the time we are in session to put these letters in the Record. But in summing up, it is very clear where we are. My Republican friends, to a person, have all signed on to a strategy, and that strategy is to keep us from passing very important legislation, including an unemployment insurance extension, including the Defense bill, including the START treaty--everything I put in the Record--until they get their tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. That, to me, is a shame. They have a right to do it. I support their right to do it. But I also think the American people ought to know what is going on. With that, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 3981, a bill to provide for a temporary extension of unemployment insurance provisions; that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration, the bill be read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, and any statements related to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. BOXER. Is there an objection?

Mrs. BOXER. Absolutely, I would not agree to that modification. It goes to the very point I was making. They want to give tax breaks to millionaires and not pay for it, but they are forcing cuts in other jobs programs here. It would only make a worse recession and I object and I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield for a question--please, a very quick one?

Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Senator so much, and he is my friend. I just want the Senator to understand this extension is not for anything beyond 99 weeks. Believe me. It is up to 99 weeks. We do not have any extension beyond 99 weeks. I just wanted my friend to know that.

Mrs. BOXER

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

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I was unavoidably delayed on vote No. 255, the Coburn motion to suspend the rules as to the Coburn amendment on earmarks. I would have voted a very strong no because I believe that authority should remain with the elected representatives and not go to bureaucrats.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I oppose the Coburn amendment to impose a 3-year moratorium on spending for local priorities, or ``earmarks.'' Those who support this amendment claim that it will help reduce the deficit and put us on the path to fiscal responsibility. This is just incorrect. Eliminating earmarks would not reduce spending and does nothing to decrease the deficit. This amendment would merely transfer spending authority away from elected members of Congress to the executive branch. The Coburn amendment would strip elected leaders' ability to direct funding to their constituents' priorities. We should all agree that elected Members of Congress have a much better understanding of what is needed in our cities and towns, and across our States than those sitting in Washington, DC. In addition, since 2006, Democrats have instituted a series of major reforms that have made earmarks more transparent than ever, and have reduced earmark levels by 50 percent. Members of Congress are now required to list their names next to requested projects and to post all requests on their official Web site. Through these initiatives Congress has taken significant steps to improve transparency and allow for greater scrutiny of these requests. I am proud to say that I have helped fund hundreds of local priorities across my home State of California: priorities that have helped build safer roads, increased commerce, prevented homes from flooding, improved health care services, spurred job creation and helped veterans recover from combat injuries. I oppose the motion to suspend the rules and allow for consideration of the Coburn amendment.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the recipients of the National Medal of Science and National Medal of Technology and Innovation from my State of California. I am so proud of the National Medal of Science Recipients from California: Yahir Aharonov from Chapman University, Marye Anne Fox from the University of California San Diego, Stanley B. Prusiner from the University of California San Francisco, and Amnon Yariv, from the California Institute of Technology. I am also very proud of the National Medal of Technology and Innovation Recipients: Marcian Hoff, Stanley Mazor, and Federico Faggin, from the Intel Corporation. Since its creation by Congress in 1959, the National Medal of Science has honored individuals for their outstanding contributions to knowledge in the physical, biological, mathematical, engineering, chemistry, and social sciences. The National Medal of Technology and Innovation is presented to individuals, teams, and companies for achievement in the innovation, development, commercialization, and management of technology. It is a great honor to receive these medals which represent the highest honor for achievements in science and technology that are bestowed by the President of the United States. This week, we recognized those who have invested so much in the advancement of knowledge and who inspire the next generation to follow in their footsteps. In order for our country to remain a strong leader in science and innovation, we must continue to promote and invest in the sciences and honor those who have accomplished so much in the name of discovery. I offer my heartfelt congratulations to these accomplished recipients from my State and wish them the best in their continued pursuits of science and technology research and innovation.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am honored to commemorate San Diego Police Officer Christopher A. Wilson, who tragically died in the line of duty on October 28, 2010 in San Diego. He was 50. Throughout his 17-year career with the San Diego Police Department, Officer Wilson placed duty ahead of his personal safety while protecting the community in southeast San Diego. Christopher Wilson was an extraordinary police officer. He trained more than 50 police officers, many of whom have stated that they are better officers because of him. A past trainee declared, ``Chris was always interested in making me the best officer he could.'' In addition to training officers, for more than 2 years Officer Wilson helped a fellow officer recuperate from an on-duty shooting by monitoring his physical and mental health. San Diego Police Chief William Lansdowne said that Officer Wilson was ``the kind of person you want in your department, your City.'' In a moving tribute to a committed and caring man, more than 700 people attended a candlelight vigil in the Skyline neighborhood to honor Officer Wilson, demonstrating the community's admiration for this brave and honorable man. More than 2,000 police officers, dignitaries, and community members paid tribute to Officer Wilson at his memorial service on November 4, 2010. Officer Wilson is survived by his mother Anne Myers, son Conner, and daughter Kaylee. My thoughts and prayers are with them during this tragic time. I also send my deepest condolences to Officer Wilson's colleagues in the San Diego Police Department who serve our community and protect our people every day.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am very disappointed that the Paycheck Fairness Act was filibustered today. The Paycheck Fairness Act passed the House on January 9, 2009, by a vote of 256-163 and Senate passage is long overdue. This critical legislation will strengthen the Equal Pay Act and close the loopholes that have allowed employers to avoid responsibility for discriminatory pay. Although the wage gap between men and women has narrowed since the passage of the landmark Equal Pay Act in 1963, gender-based wage discrimination remains a problem for women in the workforce. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, women only make 77 cents for every dollar earned by a man. The Institute of Women's Policy Research found that this wage disparity will cost women anywhere from $400,000 to $2 million over a lifetime in lost wages. Today an average college- educated woman working full time earns as much as $15,000 less than a college-educated male. Working families lose $200 billion in income per year due to the wage gap between men and women. Pay discrimination is hurting our middle class families and hurting our economy. Loopholes created by the courts and weak sanctions in the law have allowed many employers to avoid liability for engaging in gender-based pay discrimination. That is why the Paycheck Fairness Act is so important. The bill closes loopholes that have allowed employers to justify pay discrimination and prohibits employers from retaliating against employees who share salary information with their co-workers. It puts gender-based discrimination sanctions on equal footing with other forms of wage discrimination--such as race, disability or age--by allowing women to sue for compensatory and punitive damages. And it also requires the Department of Labor to enhance outreach and training efforts to work with employers in order to eliminate pay disparities. One of the 111th Congress's most important achievements was passing the Lilly Ledbetter Equal Pay Restoration Act. That legislation, which is now law, ensures that women who have been the victims of pay discrimination get their day in court and can challenge employers that willingly pay them less for the same work. The Equal Pay Restoration Act honors the legacy of Lilly Ledbetter, a supervisor at a Goodyear Tire Plant in Alabama, who after 19 years of service discovered she had earned 20 to 40 percent less than her male counterparts for doing the exact same job. Today we had another important opportunity to honor the legacy of women like Lilly Ledbetter by passing this legislation. But instead of standing up for equal economic opportunity for women, Republicans said no, and filibustered this important bill. I am very disappointed by this outcome, but I want my colleagues to know that we will not give up this fight.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking Fresno resident Victor Perez for his valiant actions that resulted in the rescue of an eight-year-old kidnapping victim and the arrest of her alleged kidnapper. I know I am joined by the victim's family and friends, the Fresno Police Department, the entire Fresno community and so many others across the country in offering my deepest appreciation to Mr. Perez for his bravery, his quick thinking and his willingness to put himself in harm's way to protect a child. Mr. Perez, like many others in Fresno and around California, was deeply concerned when he learned the news about the abduction of an 8- year-old girl from the front yard of a home in central Fresno on October 4. The next morning, when Mr. Perez noticed a truck outside of his home that matched the description of a vehicle of interest reported in the news, he decided that time was of the essence and he had to take action. Without hesitation, Mr. Perez jumped into his truck and pursued the suspicious vehicle. At one point during the pursuit, he noticed a young girl in the passenger seat, which strengthened his resolve to track down the vehicle. After seeing her, he said he had only one thought in his mind, ``I've got to get that little girl out of there.'' He bravely pursued the suspect with selfless disregard for his personal safety until he successfully cut off the vehicle, forcing the suspect to stop. Sensing that he was cornered by Mr. Perez, the suspect pushed the young victim out of the car and sped off. Mr. Perez immediately tended to the young victim and called 911 so that law enforcement officials could continue to pursue the kidnapper. When the young girl told Mr. Perez that she was scared, he assured her that she was out of harm's way. As a result of Mr. Perez's heroic actions and the speedy response by hundreds of law enforcement officers from multiple jurisdictions, the suspected kidnapper was apprehended. Most importantly, the young girl has been reunited with her mother and her family. I am thankful for Mr. Perez's altruism and courage. His selfless actions that led to the rescue of this little girl represent the best ideals of being a good neighbor, a Good Samaritan and a responsible member of a community. We shall always be grateful for his heroic deeds on the morning of October 5, 2010.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Stabenow for her leadership on this and so many issues relating to jobs--jobs here in America. I had the opportunity to listen to a bit of the debate back and forth. I heard some of my colleagues who were not in favor of this very important bill that we hope to move tonight, to reward companies that produce jobs and create jobs in America and take away the tax breaks from those who ship jobs overseas and then try to import those products back to America. We are saying let us reward those who create the jobs here in America. That is as simple as it gets. I have heard my colleagues on the other side say in a very convoluted way that when we give tax breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas, it actually winds up creating more jobs in America. I wonder if they have met some of the people I met, who actually went to other countries to train their replacements. They went to other countries to train their replacements. We just passed a very important small business jobs bill. I saw the President today sign it into law. It is going to create jobs right here in America because, guess what, it is setting up a lending system, a deficit-neutral fund through our community banks. That $30 billion deficit neutral fund will be leveraged to $300 billion and we will see a half million jobs created through the small business community. They need access to capital. This is a good step. We cannot stop there. We have to do more. That is why, as we wind down before the election, we are trying to say to our colleagues: Please, all join together on the way out of this particular session. We will be back after the election. But on the way out the door now, let's do something for the American workers, for American families. For too long the Tax Code has rewarded companies that ship jobs overseas. It seems to me it is common sense. You can make it complex. Some of my colleagues have made it complex. But when somebody tells you something like this--it is complicated--challenge them, because most ideas are not complicated. People make them complicated. If you create jobs here in America, guess what, we are going to give you a tax break. Not only that, we are going to give you a tax holiday, for the workers that you employ right here in America. We are not going to say if you move jobs overseas you get big tax break and big tax writeoffs. It is pretty simple. That is it. People who oppose this, I believe, simply do not believe it is important to create jobs here in America. I want to see the words ``Made in America'' again. Manufacturing is an essential part of our economy. We have to do all we can to promote a strong manufacturing base here at home. In my State of California, over 1.2 million Californians work in the manufacturing sector, and the products these men and women make contribute $180 billion to our State's economy. But in recent years, manufacturing businesses have left the United States and they have taken their production lines to countries such as China, India, Mexico, and hundreds of those of jobs left my State. The number of U.S. companies with foreign manufacturing affiliates increased 14 percent in the last 20 years, and it continues even during the recession. I think it is important to make a distinction between companies that sell abroad--all right, we want that--and companies that close down manufacturing here and then manufacture abroad and then reimport those products back to America. That is what we are talking about. We want our companies to get out there, make products here and sell them abroad. I think that is very important, and I want to reward that. I do not want to reward people who close down their manufacturing plants and open a new operation abroad, produce their product, and then bring it back to America. That is what we have been rewarding. A Duke University study tells us the number of companies with a corporate offshoring strategy in place more than doubled in the last 3 years. A lot of us know Senator Dorgan has been a real champion on this issue of ending tax breaks for companies that shift jobs overseas. I was proud to support his measure to end those tax breaks at least four or five times. He has come to the floor to tell the stories of American companies that have uprooted their production lines in the United States, relocated to foreign countries, only to resell their products made by foreign workers to American customers, while receiving a tax break for doing that. What is so important about these stories is, it is not just the job losses associated with companies shipping jobs overseas that hurts, it is that these companies have served as the center, the heart, of many of our communities. When a bicycle manufacturer closed its last factory in Ohio, 1,000 Americans lost their jobs to foreign workers who now build bicycles for American children to ride. So my colleagues on the other side can talk about how great that is for the workers, but 1,000 Americans lost their jobs. That is clear. On the day the company left town: Nearly 1,000 union workers streamed from a dark factory into the sun-drenched day. One worker, then another, then dozens and maybe hundreds removed their shoes. They walked in their socks to their cars and trucks and drove off the property for the last time. In their wake was a parking lot littered with rows of shoes set neatly on the asphalt. The message: Try filling these. When an appliance company announced it would leave Indiana for Mexico, a woman who had worked decades at the plant wondered what would happen to her friends and neighbors. Will they be able to stay and find work? Where is our community headed? A candy manufacturer closed plants in Pennsylvania and Oakdale, CA. About 3,000 jobs were lost between the two shutdowns. At the Oakdale plant, a number of employees broke into tears when they were told of the plant closure. Said a worker who had been at the plant for 26 years: I was one of the ones who was expecting it, but there were a lot of people in denial who took it really hard. There were a lot of people crying. It's shocking. It is so fast. So my colleagues are going to tell you this is complicated. They are going to tell you: Oh, but you ship these jobs over here and we get more jobs here. Talk to those people--3,000 jobs. Talk to them. This is a quote from the executive director of the nonprofit California Commission for Jobs. He said the plant closure ``kind of tears at your heart strings because it is such a piece of Americana.'' There are so many examples in my State of companies shipping jobs overseas. Here is what they include: a medical device manufacturer that moved 1,200 jobs to Mexico; a speaker electronics company in Chatsworth that shut down its plant and moved to China; an aviation technology company that closed its manufacturing facility in Hayward and moved jobs to China; a printer manufacturer in Camarillo that is moving its production line to China, costing 400 jobs; an optical lens manufacturer that cut 700 jobs in Petaluma and moved production to Mexico. Here is the thing about our bill. What we do is very smart. We have a carrot-and-stick approach. These companies moved American jobs overseas. They were eligible for tax breaks on their way out of town, and they are selling American products back to us, back to American consumers, that used to be made by American workers. The Tax Code, as it is now, gives tax breaks to these companies. In so many ways it encourages them, encourages them to move. Close your plant and moving it to China. Right now, the Tax Code gives you the ability to take tax deductions, tax credits, write off losses associated with closing your factory and moving it overseas. It is wrong. U.S. companies have taken great advantage of this tax benefit, slashing workers, moving production abroad, and receiving billions in tax credit as a result. It seems to me this must end, and we need to reward companies that stay in America, that stay in California, that employ our American workers. Earlier this year, we passed legislation to keep over 16,000 teachers in California in the classroom, and we paid for that bill by closing tax loopholes for companies that ship jobs overseas. That was an important step. But more needs to be done to bring those jobs back home to help American businesses invest in our economy. I have talked to American businesses that are creating jobs here at home. They are thrilled to do it. But they look at me and say: Why would you reward people who pack up, move out, and slash the American workforce? My answer is: I should not be doing that, and thank you for raising the subject with me. That is why this legislation is so important. It will end tax subsidies businesses can receive for closing U.S. factories and moving them overseas. Remember, we are not talking about foreign sales. So do not let anybody confuse you on it. We are talking about manufacturing, production. We are talking about a company that produces a product here and decides to move that operation abroad. They are encouraged to do so by our Tax Code. Today, we are saying--and we hope we get support from our colleagues--let's end those incentives and incentivize those who create jobs in America. The bill promotes job creation here at home. It includes, as I said, a 2-year payroll tax holiday for U.S. companies that hire new American workers to replace foreign employees, creating incentives for companies to bring jobs back home and invest in America's economy--in America's economy. When people say: I am a jobs creator, I want them to mean, I am creating jobs in America, not in India, not in China, not in Malaysia but right here at home. I want to see those words ``made in America'' again. That is what this debate is about. I want to rebuild our manufacturing base, creating jobs here at home by taking advantage of American innovation to help lead us toward new technology, including clean energy technology. We know the world is going green. Everyone in the world wants clean energy. We need to create those right here in America--right here in America--and export those products to the world. I am very proud of my State of California. We have led the way when it comes to creating clean energy jobs. But we should be incentivizing those companies and making sure they stay in America, that they do not move their manufacturing abroad. That is why our legislation is so crucial. The Pew Charitable Trust looked at California through this recession. You know what they found? That because of our clean energy laws in California, we have seen 10,000 new businesses and we have seen 125,000 new jobs created and the words ``made in America,'' again, are on those technologies. They are making the solar panels. They are installing them, and people are very excited about this. But if we incentivize companies to move overseas, we could lose that. We want to be the innovators, the creators. We also want to be the producers. So it seems to me, if we proceed to this bill, we are taking a big leap forward, and that leap forward means we are sending a clear signal: If you choose to create jobs in America, we want to give you every incentive--tax breaks, tax holidays--for your employees. But if you choose to close shop and send those jobs elsewhere, to China, to India, wherever, what we are saying is: You can do that, but we are not going to give you a reward for it. It is as simple as that. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 578, S. 3816, a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to create American jobs and to prevent the offshoring of such jobs overseas; that the bill be read three times, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that any statements be printed in the Record.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, it is with deep sorrow that I join my colleagues today in honoring the memory of an incredible public servant and a dear friend of mine, William Coblentz. My heart goes out to his family, whom he loved so much: his wife Jean, sister Lolita, daughter Wendy, son Andy, son-in-law Jim, daughter-in-law Shari, and four grandchildren: Nikki, Ben, Jake, and Gena. A loving family man, gifted attorney, and astute political figure, Bill left an enduring impact on the city of San Francisco, the State of California, and our Nation. Bill passed away on September 13, 2010, in San Francisco. He was 88 years old. Bill, a native of San Francisco, was born in 1922 and attended Lowell High School. After graduating from UC Berkeley in 1943, Bill served in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers during World War II. Upon completing his service, Bill attended Yale Law School, graduating in 1947. Although Bill's monumental legal career began in land use law, it quickly expanded to reflect the diversity of his interests and passions. His private practice, Coblentz, Patch, Duffy & Bass, played an essential role in guiding the development of several transformative San Francisco projects including Yerba Buena Gardens, Levi Plaza, Mission Bay, and AT&T Park. In the 1960s, Bill helped rock concert promoter Bill Graham win a permit to open San Francisco's renowned Fillmore Auditorium. Bill's passion for civic engagement was unyielding. He entered the political scene as a young adviser to then-California Attorney General Pat Brown. When he became Governor, Brown offered Bill a seat on the University of California Board of Regents, which he occupied for the next 16 years. During this time, he developed a reputation for defending the rights of outspoken students and faculty. Bill had a strong passion for the promotion of civil rights. In 2008, Bill's law firm honored his civil rights work by establishing the Coblentz Fellowship for Civil Rights at UC Berkeley's Boalt Hall School of Law. I had the honor of calling Bill a friend. His ability to connect with people was unparalleled. From his influential clients, to his political advisees, to his fellow San Franciscans, Bill treated everyone with the respect, humor and consideration he believed they deserved. His relationship with San Francisco was with its people, and it was one that he cherished throughout his life. Bill approached the people and experiences in his life with a rare combination of courage, humility, and authenticity. His wisdom and camaraderie were consistent sources of inspiration that will truly be missed. Although he is no longer with us, Bill left us not only with the tangible symbols of his legacy in San Francisco, but also with enduring memories of his engaging personality and steadfast determination.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I believe the eloquence of Senator Menendez marks a high point in the debate. I don't know that anyone could have expressed what is at stake as well as he did. I will make a humble attempt to build on what he said. Before he leaves the Chamber, in a country of, by, and for the people--our country--the people have a right to know who is supporting their Senators, who is opposing their Senators, who is supporting their Members of Congress, who is opposing them. That is all we are asking. It is simple. It is the American way. We do things in the light. It makes us different than other countries. The DISCLOSE Act is essential. I thank my colleague for his leadership. The DISCLOSE Act is a much needed response to a Supreme Court decision in Citizens United which essentially allows big money to drown out the voices of our people. I have always thought and believed--and still believe--that what makes us great is that we try to have laws that level the playing field so people who are extremely wealthy don't have more to say than those of modest means. How do we do that in everyday life? We try to have a public school system so we ensure that all children get an education. I personally am a product of public schools, kindergarten through college. Were it not for that, my family couldn't afford to send me to private schools. How could I have ever made it to a decent job, let alone to the Senate? In all of the things we try to do to try to have a safety net for people who are unemployed, everything we do, it seems to me has been to ensure we have a thriving middle class, that the American dream is there for people who work hard for it. We don't want to get to a situation where simply because a corporation has, frankly, billions of dollars they can spend on campaigns, they can simply do it in secret and there is an ad run against a sitting Senator on either side of the aisle, and we don't have any clue who has put that money down. As Senator Menendez says, they pick great names: Americans for Justice, Americans for a Better Tomorrow. They name great names. But who is behind it? Frankly, we could have a foreign country behind that ad if they had a subsidiary in America they control. That foreign country could very well be playing in our elections as we speak with the millions of dollars we see coming into the Senate races. In the Citizens United case, the majority of the Court reversed a 100-year-old law and overruled decades of legal precedent when they decided that corporations and labor unions cannot be restricted from spending unlimited amounts in Federal elections because they equated any limits with violating free speech. I ask the question in this great country of ours, where we all have the privilege of living and we all have the privilege and responsibility of voting: Why is it that a nameless, faceless entity has more speech than any one of our citizens? Why? Because these corporations are worth trillions of dollars. The average person obviously has nowhere near it. The average income in our country is about $50,000 for a family now, maybe a little less. How would that person compete with a $1 trillion corporation? The Court doesn't seem to care about that, the majority, a slim majority, when they equate spending limits with speech. What they actually said is that a corporation worth trillions gets to have much more speech than any one of my constituents in California or any one person in the whole United States of America. The decision was astounding. It defies common sense to conclude that corporations or labor unions are citizens in the eyes of the law. I said to my staff: Have you ever called a corporation and asked the corporation to go to lunch with you? Corporations are not people. They are entities. How the Court could equate corporations with people is amazing. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes, and then I will finish up. And add that--