Rick Santorum

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to hold a business meeting during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, December 20, 1995, at 10 a.m. in SD226.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 394, and that the bill be placed on the calendar.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Governmental Affairs Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 1429 and, further, that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar No. 289, H.R. 965.

Mr. SANTORUM. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be deemed read a third time, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statement relating to the bill be placed at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered read and agreed to, the committee amendment be agreed to, the bill be deemed a third time, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to the bill be placed at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. I will be happy to be accurate. The President's budget, I will concede, reduces slightly the growth of Medicare.

Mr. SANTORUM. So we have a tax cut proposal targeted at middle-income working families. I had done a few fundraisers last year when some of our local candidates were running, and there were people out there who expressed to me the same sentiment that I hear from many Members on this side at these fundraising events saying, ``We really don't need these tax cuts.'' That is what these people at fundraisers were saying: ``Well, we really don't need these tax cuts.'' And my response to them was very simple. ``That's right, you don't need these tax cuts. But there are millions of working families who do, who can't afford to be at these fundraisers because they have to feed children on two incomes.'' We want to give them a little break so maybe they do not have to work two jobs. Maybe they can just work one extra job to make ends meet. And we want to reform Medicare so Medicare will be here not just for this generation of seniors but for future generations. It absolutely amazes me how anyone could stand up here and say we are for seniors but we are not for touching Medicare in the face of a report that says it goes bankrupt in 7 years. How can you say that? How can you say you are for seniors?

Mr. SANTORUM. I take my time back.

Mr. SANTORUM. But nowhere near the amount needed.

Mr. SANTORUM. --weakly addresses the issue of Medicare.

Mr. SANTORUM. Be happy to.

Mr. SANTORUM. The Senator caught me in my own inaccuracy, and I apologize for that, and I apologize to my Democrat colleague. I should not use the term ``reduction.'' The Senator is absolutely right. I should fill that in--reduction in the rate of growth of Medicare, because that is all we are doing. We are reducing the rate of growth. As I said earlier, Medicare increases by over 45 percent over the next 7 years. And so while the President wants to reduce the rate of growth a minimal amount, less, I might add, than his original proposal when he was advocating universal health reform, all of a sudden from one year to the next he has decided that Medicare does not need to be reformed as much as he first thought it would. Now, I do not know what has led him to that conclusion other than the fact that now we want to do it and he does not. What he wanted to do before was reduce Medicare so we could get another big Federal program started--universal health care, Government- run health care. He was willing to sacrifice seniors, using his term, sacrifice seniors to fund a big new entitlement program, more health care, Government run, but when it comes to balancing the budget, no, it is not worth that sacrifice then to balance the budget--if that is what it is, a sacrifice. I guess it is a matter of your priorities. If your priority is to grow the Government, create new entitlements, create new programs, oh, it is worth taking a little bit out of one Government program to fund a brand new one. But if it is about balancing the budget, if it is about helping working Americans, if it is about creating a better economy, if it is about giving up some power here in Washington, oh, no. No, that is not a high priority in this administration. What is a high priority is scare tactics. Scare tactics. Oh, no, we are not scaring 25-year-old folks who are getting out of school and ready to take on the world. Oh, we would not scare them because, you know what, you probably cannot scare them. Oh, let us scare our grandmothers. Let us scare the golden. Let us scare the people in nursing homes. Let us scare the people who rely on Federal Government checks. Let us scare those people. They are the most vulnerable. We can get them. Oh, they rely on us. We can get their votes. We can swing their votes. It is pathetic. It is pathetic. If the Senator from Kentucky is right that the President wants meaningful Medicare reform, well, let us talk about it, do not run around the country, do not run around the country scaring seniors. Let us sit at the table and discuss it, and let us come forward with some real reforms, let us come forward with some movement. We have not seen any movement. The President's budget remains as it has at the same Medicare figure. Have we seen any changes in Medicare? No. Has he moved? No. Has he moved on Medicaid? No. Has he proposed a balanced budget? No. Why? Why? Maybe that is the fundamental question we sort of have to end with here. Why is it that the President of the United States, who promised-- I know that is not necessarily a big thing around here--who promised to balance the budget using honest numbers in 7 years, why has not he put on the table a balanced budget? Why? Why do you think that is? Do you think it is because that is not possible? No. It is not because it is not possible. We know it is possible. We actually did it in the U.S. Senate. We passed a balanced budget. I give credit, 19 Democrats had a balanced budget, using Congressional Budget Office scoring, so I give them credit. They put forward a balanced budget. I did not agree with its priorities. It might be a good place to start working from. But why has not the President put forward a balanced budget? I think the answer is pretty simple. Because if he was going to put forward a balanced budget, keeping true to what he said he wanted to do, balance the budget, provide middle-income tax cuts for families, which he said he wanted to--promised during his election. I know that does not mean anything anymore. We do not believe candidates anymore, some more than others, but he said he wanted to do that. He wanted to save Medicare, end welfare as we know it. That was part of his election campaign--end welfare as we know it. Why could he not come up with that balanced budget? The answer is very simple. If you want to do what the President says he wants to do, he has to make changes to his Medicaid and Medicare proposal. And if he does that, then he cannot run around the country scaring seniors anymore. I mean, let us cut to the chase here, folks. That is the bottom line. We all know where the savings have to come from. It is no secret here. If you take Social Security off the table, if you take Federal retirement off the table, and you are going to reform entitlements, where do you get your savings from? Where are you going to get your reforms from? We all know the answer. The President knows the answer. And why it is he is so reticent to come forward and put it on the table? Because he loses his political cards if he does it.

Mr. SANTORUM. I was interrupted, and it threw off my train of thought. I will do my best. If I am not continued to be interrupted, I will do my best to close up pretty soon.

Mr. SANTORUM. I know the Senator from Kentucky would love to have the opportunity to have the floor and say some things. And I do not think we are going to close down shop here any time soon, so I am sure you will have plenty of chances to talk for quite some time. But the reason that the President has not come forward with a balanced budget is simple--because he does not want to make the hard choices, he does not want to make the politically difficult choices of balancing the budget, he does not want to lead. It is much easier to sit up in the gallery and throw stones at the players. Oh, it is easy to be a fan. It is easy to be a critic. It is easy to be condescending. It is very hard to get on the field, put the pads on, and hit the line, make the tough choices. The President would rather stay off the field. Well, unfortunately, when you become President, you have to make some of the tough choices. That is why you get paid the big bucks because you have to make tough choices. And the reason that the Republicans are saying, ``Call me when you are ready,'' is because the President is not ready yet. He has not made the tough choices. And this is not the Senator from Pennsylvania talking, this is just about every major publication in this country who are beginning, slowly beginning, to understand that the President is not playing from the top and dealing from the top of the deck. It is about promises. And I will conclude with this. No applause necessary. We promised--we promised, those of us elected in 1994 and here in the Senate, and many others who were elected in their elections even prior to 1994, we promised that we would balance this budget. We promised. And I know promises are not thought a lot of down here. In fact, they are just sort of made to get elected. I know that is the common thing. You say things to get elected. Say you are for a balanced budget and vote against it on the floor; say you are for tax cuts and vote against on it the floor or do not propose it in your bills. But you know what? We promised. I will tell you a story of a man who was the head of a Bible college in South Carolina, something he always wanted to do. His father started the college, and he always thought of his life's vocation as taking over the college from his father and leading that school. And he did. He did for several years and was terrific at it. Loved his work. Unfortunately, his wife came down with Alzheimer's. And, as you know, Alzheimer's is a very debilitating disease. Over time she got worse and worse and worse to the point where she needed around-the-clock care. She was completely incapacitated, did not know who anybody was, did not know who he was. And he made the decision to quit his job at the Bible college and give up his vocation. The members of the board of the Bible college came to him and said, ``What are you doing? You are giving up something you have always wanted to do, and you are doing it so well. Look at the number of people you are going out to educate, to spread the Lord's word all throughout the country. And you are giving that up to go home and take care of your wife? She does not even know who you are.'' And he said two things. First he said, ``She may not know who I am, but I know who she is. And, second, when I married her, I promised till death do us part. And there is something more than a calling from God; it is a promise.'' We promised. And we are going to stay here every day, all day if necessary. And yes, we will storm out of rooms and maybe they do not storm out but they should have for the demagoguery that is going on. But we will be here every day ready, willing and able to negotiate because we promised. And I have told the leader I will be here Christmas Day. If we are going to vote on the floor of the Senate to send American men and women to be in tents and around kerosene heaters in Tuzla, then I can be away from my family on the floor of the Senate to save the next generation of Americans. We will be here. And we will win. The President will eventually understand that our resolve to balance this budget is greater than his to get away with not doing it. Madam President, I yield the floor. Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.

Mr. SANTORUM. Madam President, I have had an opportunity to listen to this whole discourse between the leaders and the chairman and now ranking member of the Budget Committee, and the excellent statement that came before. Sometimes I wonder what country I am in, how much revisionist history that we are going to be subjected to on the floor of the U.S. Senate. I have come to expect it out of the White House. I turn on the White House now and I expect to hear the latest version of nonreality. It just comes up every day. As the Senator from Florida said, this President just does not know how to tell the truth anymore. He just makes a promise and breaks it every day. Changes it every day. What is the story today? What does the poll read today? How can I flip-flop again today? One time he is out criticizing the Republicans for gutting Medicare, and his wife and himself just 2 years prior to this were advocating the exact same reductions in Medicare. I will show you the videotape. The Senator from Kansas, the majority leader, is absolutely right. All of you who can get a chance to watch ``Nightline''--this is not exactly a Republican, GOP ``Rising Tide'' program, this is ``Nightline,'' ABC ``Nightline'' on December 12--watch it. Get a copy of it. Get the transcript. Find out the truth. Find out the truth. Mrs. Clinton, in front of a committee I happen to serve on, the Ways and Means Committee, testified she wanted Medicare to grow between 6 and 7 percent. Our program under this bill grows Medicare at over 7 percent each year. And that is a slash? That is destroying? ``That is horrible. You hate seniors.'' As his press secretary said, ``Oh, Republicans want these seniors to die.'' That is the kind of rhetoric we get out of the White House--the White House, the President of the United States, not some two-bit peddler on the corner trying to hawk his wares, who can make any kind of outrageous statement he wants to, to try to sell the goods. No, the President of the United States, to the American public--bald-faced untruths. Every day. Just like his press conference a little while ago. Not true. Not true. Is his offer legitimate? Oh, how do you walk into a budget negotiation that you say you are going to live up to what the continuing resolution, the last spending bill, said--and what did he sign into law? He signed into law a balanced budget, that we would balance the budget in 7 years using the Congressional Budget Office numbers--into law. Not another one of his promises on the campaign trail, which he broke, like cutting taxes for the middle class, but signed something into law with a pen--not Lyndon Johnson's pen, maybe it wasn't Lyndon Johnson's pen--but into law. So, where does he come, the day of the shutdown? He comes into a room with a budget that does not even come close to balancing. We have had the President's budgets before. In fact, we voted on them on the floor of the Senate. The last one that was supposedly balanced in 10 years--96 to nothing. Not a single Democrat voted for his balanced budget. Another phony, another untruth that even the people on the Democratic side of the aisle could not stomach--this untruth. We are tired of stomaching untruths over here. We are downright getting angry over here. We are not angry because we feel betrayed. I disagree with the Senator from Florida. I do not feel betrayed. I expect it. I predict it. This guy is not going to tell the truth. Just believe that. Go into negotiations believing that. What I am upset about is I think we are missing an opportunity here to do something good for America. We can balance the budget of the United States. We can improve the economy of this country, create more jobs, lower interest rates, give some of that money back to the American families across this country. Oh, I know these people who do not need the money, according to many. Oh, you know, these working families making $30,000 a year who do not need the money, who would waste it if they did not give it to us. We can use it better than they can. Oh, this is the tax break for the wealthy that we have been hearing about. Let us talk about this tax break for the wealthy. Over 80 percent of the tax break for the wealthy goes to people who earn under $100,000 a year. That is the tax break for the wealthy--targeted. This is wonderful rhetoric, targeted at the wealthy, primarily the wealthy. Let me tell you about targeting. Do you know who pays 50 percent, roughly 50 percent of the taxes in this country? The top 5 percent of income earners in this country pay 50 percent of the taxes. So, if you were going to give an across-the-board tax cut based on how much you pay, obviously 50 percent of the benefit will go to the top 5 percent, because they pay 50 percent of the taxes. Yet, in this case, 80 percent of the benefits go to people who pay well under 50 percent of the taxes. How, is that targeted toward the wealthy? In reality, how can you make the argument, based on those facts--nobody argues those facts, where this money is being allocated, who the tax cuts benefit. How can you stand up on the floor of the Senate and make a factual statement, as the President has done--not on the floor of the Senate but in other places--and many Senators, make the statement that we have tax cuts targeted for the wealthy, when they know that is a lie? I am using strong terms like ``lie,'' but I do not think anybody understands these other sort of terms: obtuse, indirect, you know, not- coming-forward. We have gone beyond that. We are just dealing with some systematic disinformation campaigns that I have not seen in my lifetime. I can tell you, we have not done a very good job--I will be self- critical of myself and other Members on this side of the aisle and others who are supporting a balanced budget--we have not done a very good job of getting the facts out. In fact, if we do get the facts out, we know we can succeed. I will refer you to last Thursday's Wall Street Journal. There was a poll of Americans. The question was asked, ``Given the fact that under the Republican budget, Medicare spending increases by 45 percent over the next 7 years, do you think that is, A, too much; B, too little; or C, just about right as far as the increase is concerned? Madam President, 60 percent of the people said a 45 percent increase in Medicare spending was too much; 38 percent said it was just right; 2 percent thought it was too little. Two percent of the American public as surveyed thought that it was too little of an increase. Now, with the recent changes that we have just made in our Medicare proposal, Medicare spending goes up at a higher rate than 45 percent. Maybe that would drop to 1 percent of people who think it is too little. See, we believe that when we get the facts out--not rhetoric, not, ``Oh, you are going to hurt this person or that person,'' or showing the pictures, those graphic photos about how people are going to sleep on grates, or your grandmother who is not going to be in the nursing home. We have a responsibility here to deal with the facts. The facts. We have a responsibility here to base our decisions on what is good public policy for today, tomorrow, and the future. We are standing up as Republicans, doing what I believe is a very courageous thing. We are taking on the sacred cows of Washington, DC. We are taking on Medicare and Medicaid and welfare. We are not doing it in a time of severe financial crisis or foreign crisis. We are doing it because we believe it is in the best interests of our children and their children, and people living today to do just that. I will never forget, as a Member of Congress, reading column after column, expert after expert, people here on this floor and in the House, saying, ``When are we going to get statesmen again in this country? When are we going to get people who ignore the polls--who ignore the polls--who ignore the moment, who forget about the next election and think about the next generation? When are we going to get these statesmen here in Washington again?" They are here. And they are willing to sit down and negotiate. They are willing to get serious about solving problems. Maybe the White House should take a few days off from polling and quit worrying about what the public is saying tomorrow or the next day and think about what future generations are crying to us to do. Senator Coverdell, from Georgia, comes to the floor on a frequent basis and puts up a chart showing how, within 15 years, five programs will consume every dollar of Federal spending. Five programs: Welfare, Medicaid, Federal retirement, Medicare, and Social Security. Those five entitlement programs will consume every Federal dollar, with the exception of payments for interest. You can trot around here all you want about: You should not touch Medicare. You should not do this. If we do not control the rapid growth of all of these programs, you will not have to worry about Head Start funding. We will not have to worry about Labor-HHS. There will be no Labor-HHS bill. We will not have to worry about continuing resolutions. We will not have any money to appropriate. We will have all entitlement spending. We can go home. We do not have to pass any bills around here. Everything will be on automatic pilot. We will just spend away. To suggest by our efforts to reform Medicare and Medicaid that we, somehow, do not care about your grandmother or grandfather in a nursing home or do not care about people who are indigent getting care is the lowest form of demagoguery. Do you not care about people today and tomorrow? Do you not care about the future? Do you not really care that unless we make changes, these programs are doomed? You can whistle through the graveyard at night all you want, but eventually, folks, we face the music. We must face the music. And when the President of the United States walks in with his negotiators in a budget negotiation today to present an honest budget, he does not even nick either of those programs, Medicare or Medicaid, does not even talk about reforms of either of those programs, when he knows that we have to make fundamental changes. They did not walk out, but I would not have blamed Senator Domenici and Congressman Kasich to walk out. There comes a time in every negotiation when one side just has to call the bluff, and right now the President is bluffing. He has been bluffing for months. He is hiding those cards. He has not shown them to anybody. All he is doing is looking at those cards and telling the American public: Oh, my cards are great. They protect our values. I sometimes quiver at what his values are. But they protect them. Our cards are all laid out on the table. They are all face up. You can see every one of them. You can see our good cards and you can see our bad cards. You know what we have said? We are willing to negotiate all of those cards. I do not know where the Senator from Nebraska or the Senator from South Dakota are coming from in saying that we are not willing to negotiate the tax cuts. I have not heard one remark from any of the negotiators or any of the leaders or anyone on this floor who said we are not willing to negotiate the tax cuts. We are certainly willing to negotiate the tax cuts. We have already, as the Senator from Nebraska said--and it may not have been as much as he would like to have seen--we have already changed the tax cut a little bit. We knocked off $5 billion. But remember, this is money that you work for. You would think around here that a tax cut is money that we have in Washington that we may want to give to you. Let me remind you that you have to pay it here first. You have to work hard to earn it and then pay it here. We do not have a right to it. This is not a Government where you say, well, 100 percent of what you own is ours and whatever we are willing to give you back you can keep. That is not the way it works. Over the next 7 years, taxes will increase above the level today by over $3 trillion. Americans will pay $3 trillion more in taxes over the next 7 years. What are we suggesting? Well, instead of increasing it $3 trillion, it will increase a little less than that, about $240 billion less than that. Boy, what a giveaway. Boy, what a steal here. We are just throwing money out of Washington, are we not? You are going to give us $3 trillion more and we will give you a couple hundred billion and we will target it specifically.

Mr. SANTORUM. That is, $141 billion of the $245 billion targeted specifically at middle-income working families.

Mr. SANTORUM. I yield for a question.

Mr. SANTORUM. The President's budget--

Mr. SANTORUM. Just a few more minutes. I will be done in 5 more minutes, I would suggest.

Mr. SANTORUM. I will be happy to yield for a question.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Madam President, I rise to support the passage of H.R. 325, which was received from the House of Representatives this afternoon. As the original Senate sponsor of this bipartisan legislation, I commend the distinguished chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee for his support and prompt assistance in obtaining unanimous consent to take up and pass this measure. H.R. 325 repeals a costly and bureaucratic mandate, known as the Employee Trip Reduction Program [ETRP], which was imposed as part of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. Under the law, States are responsible for establishing the program in regions considered to be in severe nonattainment for certain air pollutants. Individual employers in these areas must develop plans to show how their employees will curb automobile use. Although this program was initially viewed as a means of encouraging ride-sharing and mass transportation in areas with severe air quality problems, it has proven very complicated and expensive to implement. Some studies have set the cost of ETRP as high as $1,000 per employee annually, and the Environmental Protection Agency projected that it might cost employers $1.2 to $1.4 billion nationwide. When Congressional Research Service looked at this requirement, the report's authors estimated that ETRP would only reduce volatile organic compounds by 0.5 to 0.8 percent over current levels. Moreover, the failure to establish a plan and ensure employee compliance could expose businesses to fines as high as $25,000 per day. Although I have serious questions about whether ETRP can be implemented successfully, I must stress that this legislation does not remove the trip reduction program from the Clean Air Act entirely. Instead, it replaces the law's one-size-fits-all mandate with language making this program voluntary. In crafting this legislation, it was our specific goal to leave the trip reduction program in place as a tool for States to use in meeting their overall air quality goals. In this way, it would leave States the option of electing a car-pooling program when, and where, it will have the greatest benefits. The measure was further amended in the House Commerce Committee to make clear that states will still be responsible for achieving the pollution reductions allotted for the ETRP program, and I believe that this change will help to ensure that the environmental objectives of the Clean Air Act are not weakened. The need for this measure is clear. In the Philadelphia metropolitan area, the looming threat of a forced car pooling program earlier this year sent hundreds of employers scrambling to establish ride-sharing programs. For some firms in the Center City area where mass transportation options are prevalent, such plans could be set up easily. Many companies in the surrounding counties or employers with irregular shifts, however, found that they could not meet the law's requirements without taking costly and extraordinary steps to restructure work schedules. Thankfully, both the EPA and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania shelved plans for implementing the ETRP before the law was to take effect. Nevertheless, the law itself has remained in place, exposing all involved to the possibility of legal action to enforce its requirements. Twice this year, Congress has passed legislation containing a prohibition on enforcement of the ETRP. By passing H.R. 325, we will achieve a small measure of common sense regulatory relief and finally close the books on this unnecessary mandate once and for all. Again, I thank the chairman for his support of H.R. 325, and I look forward to seeing this measure signed into law quickly.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. So we are going to continue to throw pictures up, and that is how we are going to deal with facts.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Hampshire for yielding. I want to congratulate him on the work he has done. He has been here many, many days and many, many hours debating a very difficult, emotional issue. I have been in the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives now for 5 years. I have never spoken on the floor of either body on the issue of abortion. I never felt in my heart comfortable coming to the floor and talking about legislating the issue of abortion. I thought, as do many folks who vote pro-life here, that the issue is one that we have to educate and we have to change hearts and we have to go out to the public and sensitize the public to the horrors of abortion in this country. I say that as someone who is pro-life, but I think there are people who are pro-choice who believe also that abortion is wrong, it should be minimized in this country. So I always felt uncomfortable talking about legislating abortion. I have to say, I felt compelled to come up and talk about this. This is not about pro-life or pro-choice. This is about a horrific procedure that should shock the conscience of anyone who has heard how this procedure is done. The Senator from Maine just said, ``Well, you are going to take folks and force them from one risky procedure to another risky procedure. That may be true, but this risky procedure shocks the conscience of anyone who has heard it described. This is so horrific. There is some sort of moral code in this country. To see a baby three-quarters born have scissors stuck in the back of their brain--where have we come as a country when we say, ``Well, we need a statute to prohibit that,''-- this is wrong. I do not even think we should be having debate about it. One of the problems I think many of us have who are pro-life, who are conservative is that we tend to argue facts and figures. I was ready to read you that of the two doctors who performed the majority of these abortions, half of the babies who were born were perfectly healthy. One doctor testified to that effect and nine of the flawed babies had cleft palate. Flawed babies. We had Dr. Haskell, the other abortionist who does this, saying 80 percent of the abortions were purely elective abortions. So do not try to sell a bill of goods. Those are facts and figures. I think what we have trouble with sometimes, as Republicans, is we put up charts, graphs, and numbers, and people just sort of glaze over. On the other side, they are much smarter. There is Senator Boxer with pictures of happy faces. There are no facts and figures. There is no medical evidence to support that partial birth abortion is the right thing to do, this is the moral thing to do, that this is what our society should stand for. No, you put up pictures of happy, smiling faces. You pull at the heartstrings on the other side and hope that all the truth just gets pushed in the background. There is an obvious truth here. There is an obvious truth here. You have a baby, not what they like to refer to as, ``an intact dilation and extraction.'' That is the way they describe this. An intact procedure. This intact thing is a baby, and it is three-quarters of the way delivered through the birth canal. It is not terminated, it is killed. Whether you are for abortions or against abortions, you cannot be for doing this. It shocks the conscience of a society and should not-- should not--be a procedure that is sanctioned by this body. I yield back the remainder of my time. Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.