Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Before my friend leaves, I think I can put some specifics out to him. We already know there are $10 billion worth of highway projects that have not been obligated. That is at risk right away. We know there are Superfund cleanups that are long overdue. We have funds for that. We have $5.5 billion in construction-related activity that deals with cleaning up underground leaking storage tanks and the specialized, good-paying jobs that those activities create. We have $300 million to restore our Nation's wildlife refuges. We have $100 million in a great program Republicans and Democrats have been lauding in my committee--the Economic Development Administration--where you leverage those funds from business. That would be at risk. We have $5 billion available for flood control. It is ironic that my friend from Louisiana--I have been working with him and Senator Landrieu to do everything in our power to stop flooding. We have problems in our State, and Lord knows and the world knows about the problem in Senator Vitter's State; $5 billion was available for flood control, for water supply and harbor maintenance, all of which are focused on job creation, and the irony of ironies is that those funds could well be cut under the Vitter amendment.

Mrs. BOXER. Any funds not obligated out of the $5 billion available. As we know, Vice President Biden says, on average, 25 percent of the funds have been obligated. That means a good portion of the $5 billion for flood control would, in fact, be at risk. I thank my friend for coming over and helping me explain to our colleagues and the American people why we oppose this amendment, even though it may be well intentioned. At the end of the day, it hurts our people and their chance to get good jobs. I yield the floor and reserve my time.

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, how much time remains on the Vitter amendment on either side?

Mrs. BOXER. And on the general debate?

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I am going to put a couple of items in the Record and make sure Senator Vitter can offer his budget point of order. I asked if Senator Durbin would be willing to take 10 minutes on our side on the general debate. I don't think I have to ask unanimous consent, but why don't I do that. I ask unanimous consent that after I conclude and after Senator Vitter makes his point of order, then we get to Senator Durbin for his 10 minutes.

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, on the issue of the Congressional Budget Office score that scores the House bill as deficit reduction, I find it intriguing that my friend who supports the CBO when they say we are spending money--for example, on the health bill, they say: Oh, look. CBO says it costs money, but he derides it when CBO says this particular bill is a deficit reducer. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the CBO score that shows, in fact, the bill sent over from the House reduces the deficit.

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, notwithstanding the order of July 29, I ask that it be in order for Senator Vitter to make a budget point of order against H.R. 3357 at this time, and that a motion to waive the applicable point of order be considered made, with the vote on waiving the point of order occurring at a time to be determined.

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I rise to speak against the Ensign amendment, and I want to explain why, so I will take my time off that discussion and retain the remainder of my time on the other amendments. Let me say that Senator Ensign has come to the floor and he wants to talk about fiscal responsibility. I welcome that debate. He blames the Democrats for not doing anything to help us get a handle on deficits and debt. But let's go back to recent history--not ancient history, recent history. Bill Clinton left the White House in the year 2000, and we had a budget surplus. That was very hard to get to, but we Democrats did it with him and with the help of some of our Republicans. We had a debt practically eliminated. It was on the way down. And I remember discussions about what do we do when we have no more Treasuries to buy. Then we had George Bush elected, and we had the Republicans supporting him. In a nanosecond, the whole table turned. We went from budget surpluses as far as the eye could see to deficits as far as the eye could see. We went from a debt that was going to be extinguished to a debt that began climbing. As a result of these policies, there was a call for change in this country. We had more Democrats elected. We have a Democratic President, and he inherited one giant mess. The chickens came home to roost. So our President said to the Nation: I am going to do everything I can to get out of this economic mess. Help me. Help me pass a bill that will put people to work. He said: I know it is going to be hard. I know it is going to take time, but we need to do this because of the recession. And if we don't get out of this recession, we are not going to be able to attack the problem of deficit and debt. Anyone who knows President Obama knows that when he was a Senator, he was always conscious of our fiscal issues and distressed about the course we had been on for the last 8 years. So here is what happens. We are 4 months into the economic recovery package. I have been to places in California, I have seen people getting those jobs--highway jobs, water infrastructure jobs, cleaning up Superfund sites, restoring our wildlife refuges. Those are just some examples of the jobs. And we know, according to Vice President Biden, that about 25 percent of those funds have been obligated. Senator Vitter came down here and said nothing is working; we are not getting those jobs out there. Let's go in and cut that stimulus program--put a dagger in its heart is what they want to do, when it isn't necessary to do so. The Congressional Budget Office, as I have said--and I have put into the Record--tells us the bill the House sent us does nothing to increase the deficit. As a matter of fact, it is a small benefit to the deficit over 10 years. They figure it is about $40 million--not much, but it doesn't produce more deficits. So they come to the floor and they are arguing the House bill at the desk causes deficits when the Congressional Budget Office says, after they had done a study, absolutely not. They still insist it does. Fine. They do not agree with the CBO. By the way, they do agree with the CBO when the CBO says there are costs to health care reform. Then they embrace the CBO. But now they can't because it doesn't fit their political rhetoric. So all I can say is, if you take all these amendments--and, look, I don't think they are meant to be mean-spirited. I think they are honest in their approach. They do not like the fact that we passed the stimulus bill. They do not believe in it, even though a few of them on the other side--a few of them--have gone to see some of the projects that are putting their own people to work. A few have done that. I find that a little disingenuous, but that is their choice. Their argument just doesn't hold up. Look, if we take the funding out of the stimulus, we put at risk $10 billion of highway-related jobs. We put at risk millions of dollars that would otherwise be paid to our construction industry. We put at risk very important construction projects at military bases, long overdue Superfund cleanups, the creation of clean energy jobs in the future, improvements to outdated rural water systems. Why would we want to do this--Why, in the middle of a recession, when we have come up with a way to handle this that does not add to our deficit? On the highway trust fund, Democrats and Republicans in the Senate agree we ought to do an 18-month extension. On that part of the Vitter amendment, you will find me on his side, but not to take the funds out of the unspent stimulus money that is on the ground and putting people to work and will continue to do so. It has only been 4 months since the funding has started to get out the door. Have a little patience. You know, for 8 years we saw the economy turn into a bad way. For 8 years, we saw this economy turning bad. For 8 years, we saw the recession building. For 8 years, we saw the deficit building. For 8 years, we saw the debt building. It is not going to take 4 or 5 months to turn this around. And why would we put a dagger in the heart of job creation at this point, no matter how noble the effort? I believe it is very important that we don't play games with this bill that is at the desk. For example, Senator Bond is going to offer a very good amendment. It has nothing to do with cutting the stimulus; it just corrects a real problem, and it restores funding to the trust fund. He is absolutely right on that, and I absolutely will support his amendment. But here is the thing. We have until September 30 to make that fix, when we have to reauthorize the program. This is just a financial transfer into the fund. September 30, we need to actually reauthorize the highway bill. We take care of Senator Bond. But the reason I cannot support it is, as he well knows, the House has stated-- and I do not agree with their attitude, I don't agree with it but they have stated--this is it. We are giving you this quick influx of funds, and we do not want to have it come back with amendments. We can put off the Bond amendment. We have time to deal with it. I praise Senator Bond for continuing to raise this matter before us because we do have to take care of it. Let's just get it straight. When people come down to this floor and rail against deficits and rail against the debt, just remember that little simple piece of history that is documented, that President Clinton left President George W. Bush a surplus as far as the eye could see and a debt going down. Now the other side of the aisle claims our President is not moving fast enough on all these fronts. Let me assure my colleagues our President cares a lot about the financial future of this country. He has two little kids. He knows exactly what their burden is. I do not believe that fiscal responsibility belongs to the other party because it was our party, under Bill Clinton, that got this country in the best financial shape it was in for decades. It only took a few short years to see all that go out the window. Let's not lecture each other. If they continue to do it, I will just continue to bring up the facts. But, again, I see Senator Bond is here. I am going to repeat what I said before he got here. I complimented the good Senator because I think he is totally right on his amendment. However, I do know if it is attached to this bill what will happen because the House has told us. They will not take up the replenishment. We risk the highway trust fund running out of funds. I personally will work with the Senator from Missouri and my colleague, Senator Inhofe, to make sure the Bond amendment is part of the reauthorization which we will have to do in September. But I thank him because he perseveres. He brings it up all the time, and it is good that he does so. I support exactly what he is trying to do, but the timing, unfortunately, would undermine the replenishment of the trust fund. I yield the floor and retain the remainder of my time.

Mrs. BOXER. Before Senator Bond leaves the floor, I wanted to thank him for his leadership on this issue. I wanted to assure him and all the people who support this amendment that this amendment will pass. It will not pass today, I do not think, for one main reason. We are fearful of playing these parliamentary games with the House on the highway trust fund. We have until September 30 to address this issue. My friend is entirely correct, we must deal with this rescission. We have to repeal it and we are going to repeal it. I will work with him to do that. I simply wished to say that on September 30, when we are faced with our next deadline, the entire bill has to be reauthorized. So it is not only this problem but many other issues have to be addressed. Again, I wish to state this: I am not happy the House sent us this very short extension. I and I know my colleague wanted to see the highway trust fund extended for 18 months. I think the places we differ have to do with how we pay for the extension. Senator Vitter and all my colleagues who are dealing with unemployment insurance and the rest want to cut funds out of the job-producing stimulus program. I think it is unnecessary. I also would say to my colleagues who say we are borrowing and we are borrowing to do all this: Simply look at the CBO score which scores this as a positive. The House bill is scored as a positive because of some of the legislative changes in it. Again, I wish to be clear, I will work side by side with Senator Bond. We are going to reauthorize the highway bill. It might be for 18 months. Maybe we can get together and we can come up with a bill for 5 or 6 years. We have to find a funding source to do that. I hope we can. But we will deal with the Bond amendment. We have to deal with it. The Senator is exactly right-- exactly right. He talks about taking shovels away from workers. The only place I disagree with him is that I think you are taking shovels away from workers by cutting the stimulus. I visited my State. I see people being put to work. As Vice President Biden said: We have only seen 25 percent of the stimulus money go out the door. So I also wanted to ask unanimous consent when Senator McCain comes to the floor he wanted some time to speak on the Bond amendment. So I ask Senator McCain be given up to 15 minutes to speak on the Bond amendment.

Mrs. BOXER. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. BOXER

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

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, we are going to vote on a series of Republican amendments to a bill that has come over from the House of Representatives that funds the highway trust fund until September 30, that funds unemployment insurance, and that helps us with the housing crisis and allows us to see more mortgages go to qualified families of America. It is important to note that if we don't accept the House package, we are really playing Russian roulette with the highway trust fund. As the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, who works very hard with my colleague Senator Inhofe across party lines to ensure we have a robust infrastructure program, I want to be clear: If we don't pass this House bill, then we are up against the wall. We send a very bad signal to the people who are counting the contracts that go out for the highway program and the work that follows. We have many working people who count on these jobs. I support one of these amendments. The Bond amendment makes eminent sense. I do take issue with the timing because we have been told by our House colleagues that this is all we are going to do; if we amend this bill, then we are stuck. So it is one of those awkward and difficult moments. Truth be told, the people out there who are working hard are not going to get all the subtleties of the moment. They want to make sure their job is there in the morning. So even though I support one of these amendments, the Bond amendment--and I have stated and Senator Bond understands that I will be supporting him when we reauthorize this bill September 30; we will take care of this rescission--we don't have to take care of it now. What we must take care of today is the highway trust fund. It is running out of funds. We have to act. I hope we can do it across party lines. The other thing I support is an 18-month extension of highway programs. That is, again, something I have done with my Republican colleagues. We passed out of the Environment and Public Works Committee, on a unanimous vote, an 18-month extension. Senator Baucus, over on Finance, was able to come up with an intergovernmental transfer that does not add to the deficit of about $27 billion to ensure that we can go forward for 18 months while we sit down across party lines and figure out the long-term answer to funding our highway and transportation needs over the next 5 years. There is a split between the Senate approach and the House approach. The House approach, which I don't agree with, is to keep making short- term extensions as a way to force us to act in the long term. But we all know we have to figure out a funding source that will take us through the next 5 or 6 years. It is going to take time, and we need to do it right. I believe in making sure we have a pay-go system. I am not willing, as the chairman of the committee, to simply hand off a huge bill to the Finance Committee without any recommendations. So it will take us a little while. We have a difference between the House approach and the Senate approach. But here is the point and why I believed it was important to be heard before we vote. The House has a very short-term extension. That is what they have given us. They have told us that if we don't take this, we are not going to be able to ensure that the highway trust fund is solvent. I, for one, am not willing to play games with this. It is too serious. Even though I don't agree with the House approach, we have other days left to make the case. The other point I want to make is that the Republican approach to this is the 18-month extension, which I fully support, and the way they pay for it is by saying: We are going to take money out of the stimulus program, the economic stimulus program that has just begun to take hold in the country. The Republicans didn't vote for it, most of them--three of them did, but the others didn't--and they want to stop it. It is counterproductive, in a time of recession, to stop a jobs program right in the middle. These are jobs for highways, transportation, cleaning up Superfund sites. These are jobs that are dealing with water infrastructure, with education. Of all the times to come up here and recommend that we stop this jobs program now, this is wrong. I am totally willing to work with my colleagues so at the end of the stimulus bill, at the end of that time, which is in about 18 months, if we have not spent some of those funds, we should take a hard look at putting those funds into the Treasury to reduce the deficit, perhaps. Perhaps we need at that point to use some of it for the highway trust fund. But today is not the day. If I could summarize where I see things today, we have a series of Republican amendments that basically say we should stop this, we should take funds out of the stimulus package now in order to pay for unemployment insurance, in order to pay for the highway trust fund, and in order to pay to help our people with their mortgages. And it is counterproductive. On the one hand, they are doing something to help the economy by helping our people with mortgages, by ensuring there is unemployment insurance, and ensuring there is money in the highway trust fund. On the other hand, they are stopping jobs to do it, and it is not necessary. The House bill, although I do not appreciate the fact that it is a very short-term extension of the highway trust fund, is deficit neutral. CBO has so scored it. So we do not have to do this, and we should not do this. As I understand it, it is time now to have that series of votes. So I make a parliamentary inquiry as to what time we are having those votes.

Mrs. BOXER. All right. Then I would yield the floor, and I hope we would be voting at this point.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I urge strong bipartisan support against the Vitter amendment. There is nothing about reckless borrowing going on. I have already put into the Record today the CBO analysis of the House bill that is before us that says it even creates a little bit of surplus because of how this is handled. This is not going on the debt. So let's not stand here and say what it is about. The second point is, there are tens of billions of dollars in unspent funds that we authorized on a bipartisan vote on the stimulus package. I know most of my colleagues on the other side never wanted to do that stimulus package. I understand that. I respect it. But the fact is, we finally see these funds going out and hiring the people we want to make sure have jobs. We see and we hear from our Governors that the funding is helping them retain teachers, police officers. We see funding is helping them move forward with shovel-ready projects.

Mrs. BOXER. OK. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I hope colleagues will listen. What this Sessions amendment does, it takes all the corrections that are in the underlying bill--making sure the highway trust fund does not go bust, making sure the unemployment trust fund is full, making sure we have help for our middle-class families seeking to get mortgages--and it funds it instead of in a deficit-neutral way that is in the underlying bill which I put in the Record, the CBO score which actually scores positive in terms of the surplus over the 10 years, it slashes the stimulus funding right as it is beginning to take hold. If you want to take care of all these things, and I think we all do, let's do it the right way. Let us not do it the wrong way and slash funds from the stimulus bill as we are beginning to see it take hold. I urge a ``no'' vote on the Sessions amendment.

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I yield 30 seconds to Senator Inhofe.

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I thank my ranking member. He and I, as everyone knows, don't always agree. But when we do agree, we hope our colleagues will follow. We do not want to play Russian roulette with the highway trust fund. We have to make sure it stays solvent. I urge an ``aye'' vote.

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

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I wish to take a moment to thank everyone. This was a very complicated series of amendments. It was daunting to figure out what each one of them meant. The bottom line is that we did replenish the highway trust funds until September 30. Most of us would have liked to have done better than that. We helped with unemployment insurance, and we helped families get mortgages. We also made a commitment to Senator Bond that we are going to take care of his amendment at the appropriate moment. I particularly thank Senator Durbin for all his help on the floor. Again, this was a confusing series of amendments. I am pleased with the outcome. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am honored to remember U.S. Border Patrol agent Robert Rosas, who was killed in the line of duty at the age of 30. On July 23, 2009, Agent Rosas was shot and killed after responding to a call in Campo, CA. Every day he placed duty ahead of his personal safety while protecting our Nation's Southwest border. In spite of the known dangers, Agent Rosas and thousands like him answer the call to service. Agent Robert Rosas was born and raised in El Centro, a border city in Imperial County. He joined the U.S. Border Patrol in May 2006, and was assigned to the Campo Station in the San Diego sector. Agent Rosas was also a reserve officer for the El Centro Police Department, known as an outstanding officer and a positive role model in the community. Agent Rosas is survived by his wife Rosalie, a son, Robert, age 2, and a daughter, Kayla Alisa, 11 months. My thoughts and prayers are with Rosalie, Robert, and Kayla Alisa Rosas at this tragic time. They have lost a husband and father. I also send my deepest condolences to Agent Rosas' colleagues in the Border Patrol service. Theirs is a difficult and too often dangerous job. I commend their service, protecting our Nation, and our people.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I wish to spend about a minute to explain why I will object.