Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, what is the order?

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to speak for as much time as I may consume until that time.

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, Senator Cruz makes an impassioned plea against a nominee who is considered by some to be exemplary. It is his right to do that, but let me say before my friend leaves the floor, as impassioned as he is, calling Mr. Barron a liberal, I have heard many call Mr. Barron a conservative. So he must be doing something right. I think it is interesting. So let's keep politics out of this and look at someone's record.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, with all the arguments and debate that go on around here in a very legitimate way--it is fair. The parties have grown very far apart--whether you look at the minimum wage, with the Democrats wanting to raise it, with some Republicans who say do away with it altogether; with extended unemployment benefits, where we can barely get a handful of them to go along with us--I could go on through the list. We are going to have a chance to make sure students have a fair shot at refinancing their student loans. We do not know where they are, but so far I have not seen them join Senator Warren in her very important move to allow students to refinance their student loans. I could go through a list longer than I am tall. I am not that tall, but still it is 5 feet of differences. We finally have come together in a way that I am very proud. As chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, we have two sides of our committee--the environment side, which tends to be very difficult, very difficult, with big splits; and then we have the public works side. By putting aside our differences--our deep differences--on the environment and focusing on the other side, we have been able to come up with a couple of really good bills. The first one is the Water Resources Reform and Development Act called WRRDA. It is so important to our Nation, whether you are a coastal port or an inland port, and it is crucial that this get done. The last WRDA bill was nearly 7 years ago. I was proud to be involved in that at that time. This one--7 years later--is long overdue. I am going to talk to you more about it. We also voted out a highway bill out of our committee. We are very proud of that. Senator Vitter and I worked very closely, and Senator Barrasso, Senator Carper, and all the Members on both sides and their wonderful staffs. So tomorrow, I believe, we are going to vote on WRRDA, we are going to vote on the water bill. I know we have a very hectic day tomorrow, so rather than take the time then, I am going to take the time now, and I am hoping to be joined by some colleagues today. But if not, I will lay out why we need to do this bill. First, I want to say a wonderful thing happened in the House yesterday when the conference report passed over in the House 412 to 4. That was really pretty terrific. Everyone pretty much rose above partisan politics. I am very pleased that Senator Reid is moving forward with this report and all colleagues on both sides want us to pass that conference report and send it to the President. He will sign this bill. Let me tell you what is at stake: at least half a million jobs--half a million jobs. First of all, we deal with ports and waterways. The conference agreement makes important investments in reforms related to our Nation's ports. Our Nation's ports and waterways move over 2.3 billion tons of goods--that is amazing--every year; 2.3 billion tons of goods. So we need to keep our ports modernized. We need to invest in our ports. So in this bill we do. We include a project in Texas, for example, to widen and deepen the Sabine-Neches waterway, which will have over $115 million in annual benefits. This critical waterway transports over 100,000 tons of goods every year. It is the Nation's top port for movement of commercial military goods. And it is vital to our Nation's energy security. This bill will allow the Corps to address dangerous cross currents at the Port of Jacksonville, FL--that is another example--that create safety concerns for ships entering and exiting the port. It also allows the deepening of this vital hub of commerce. The bill also authorizes a project to deepen the Boston Harbor to 50 feet. This will prevent heavier road traffic in the busy Northeastern corridor by allowing larger vessels coming through the newly deepened Panama Canal to transport cargo all the way north to Boston Harbor. Without the access to Boston, these vessels would have to offload in other ports and put the cargo on trucks to their final destinations in the Northeast. Madam President, what I would like to do now is yield to my friend, the Senator from Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu. I just want to say--and I will finish my remarks when she has completed hers because she has a very hectic schedule and I am able to stay on the floor for a while--whenever I see Senator Landrieu she talks to me about her State. And her State is magnificent. I have been there. I was there after Katrina, at her urging. I have been there since to see some of the progress we have made. But Louisiana is a special place. And this special Senator never forgets what needs to be done, and part of it is playing a big role in a bill like the Water Resources Reform and Development Act. So at this time I will yield, if it is all right, through the Chair. Am I permitted to do this? Can I yield the time that I took to my friend for as much time as she may consume?

Mrs. BOXER. You're welcome.

Mrs. BOXER. I reclaim my time. I want to again say to the Senator that she has made this case. This WRRDA bill is life and death. It truly is in so many of our States. We all saw Katrina. We all saw Superstorm Sandy. I can tell you--I know it sounds like an overstatement, but I can assure you it is not--if we have a situation like that in the Sacramento area, because of the businesses located there and how many people are there--our State has 38 million people-- the devastation would be worse than we have ever seen because of the number of people. This bill takes care of that problem too so we can fix our levees. That is critical. Our levees are falling apart. The Senator has made the case so forcefully for her State, but also she calls attention to the fact that we are experiencing extreme weather. We cannot put our heads in the sand. I was thinking the other day that if you put your head in the sand, you are going to get sand in your eye and you will never be able to see too well. We have got to get our heads out of the sand. Extreme weather is here. It is here because of climate change. We have to deal with it. My preference is to do what we can to avoid climate change. But it is late in the game even now. So we have to adapt. My friend from Louisiana, I have to say, has been a stalwart in protecting her State. We have heard from the Senator from Louisiana as to why WRRDA is so important. You have heard a little bit from me. I was talking about the important projects across this Nation. I discussed the one in Texas, through which they move so many military goods. I discussed the one in Florida where they have these cross currents that are dangerous. I began to discuss a project to deepen Boston Harbor to 50 feet. This will prevent heavier road traffic in the busy Northeast corridor by allowing the larger vessels coming through from the newly deepened Panama Canal to transport cargo all the way north to Boston Harbor. Without that access to Boston, these vessels would have to offload in other ports and put the cargo on trucks to their final destination in the Northeast. We really have to think about our ports as the alternative, in many cases, to putting cars on the road. In our State, we call it kind of the ``sea highway.'' Our idea in California is to tie our ports together so there can be a seamless way to transport cargo. In addition to authorizing crucial port projects, the bill reforms the harbor maintenance trust fund to increase port investment. Despite significant maintenance needs at our Nation's ports, only roughly half of the fees collected in the harbor maintenance trust fund go to port activities. These are user funds. They ought to be used for the purpose for which they were intended. This conference report calls for a full expenditure of all revenues collected in the trust fund by 2025. I want to say, I have had some very good talks with the appropriators, Chairman Mikulski and Ranking Member Shelby. They have ports in their great States. They know the need to utilize these funds at the ports. We collect funds for the harbor maintenance trust fund, and then they are going to every other kind of use. It does not make sense. It is not right. I believe in user funds, whether it is the highway trust fund, the harbor maintenance trust fund, whether it is Social Security, Medicare--they are targeted funds. They should stay and be used for those purposes. We do set priorities for our larger ports, smaller ports, for the Great Lakes, the seaports that are large donors. We say, if you are a large donor port, you ought to deserve to have some attention. I can tell you, I represent the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles, through which 40 percent of U.S. container imports pass. They put so much money into the trust fund and they get so little back. There are many cases like that. I am particularly familiar with these because I hear from the folks from those particular ports. We also have very important inland waterway systems, and this conference report makes important reforms to those. It is essential for transporting goods throughout the country. These include efforts to expedite project delivery and better prepare for future floods and droughts that can slow or even stop navigation at our inland waterways. We talked a little bit about extreme weather. In the Presiding Officer's State, I will never forget, just before your arrival in the Senate, seeing pictures of what was happening in North Dakota with floods and fires. It was just the most apocalyptic scene that Senator Conrad had photos of. It was shocking. We are seeing more and more of this extreme weather. We need to get ahead of it. We need to do much needed flood control and coastal hurricane protection projects around the country. We talked a little bit about Sacramento, our State capital. It faces some of the Nation's most severe flood risks. The bill contains flood protection measures that will allow the port to strengthen the levees in the Natomas Basin in Sacramento. Here is how many people will be safeguarded: 100,000 people will be safeguarded and $8 billion worth of property. The bill also focuses on lifesaving flood protection for more than 200,000 residents of Fargo, ND, and Moorhead, MN. We are talking about States all across our great Nation that have to protect their people. The bill will restore the reliability of the levee system that protects Topeka, KS. These levees protect thousands of homes and businesses in the city, and this project will return over $13 in benefits for every $1 invested. The bill will provide lifesaving protection for coastal communities in coastal Louisiana. We heard from Senator Landrieu. Senator Vitter was very strong on this as we worked together. When we are chairmen, we have to do what is right for the country and also do what is right for our States. The conference report is going to improve our responses to extreme weather events whether they occur in Fargo, Sacramento, or New Orleans. After the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina and Superstorm Sandy, it became clear that communities needed assistance to protect lives, property, and to improve infrastructure resiliency. What does ``resiliency'' mean? It means that you build your infrastructure in a resilient way so that it lasts and doesn't collapse when you need that protection. For the first time, this bill allows the Corps to conduct immediate assessments of affected watersheds following an extreme weather event. In the old days, before all this extreme weather, the Corps would come back and fix places and make them just the way they were before the event. Now we are saying: If there is an extreme weather event, please, Corps, identify and look at the ability to construct small flood- control and ecosystem restoration projects, such as levees and floodwalls, and restore wetlands without going through the full study process and receiving additional congressional authorization. We don't waive any environmental laws. We just say: When you have an emergency and you can show us there are small projects that can work, just go do it because we want people to have their communities back. The conference report calls for the Corps to use resilient construction techniques that are far more durable. I remember I was in a big debate with a Republican Senator when we had a bridge collapse after an earthquake--an approach to a bridge--and he said: Well, why are you spending more money than it cost to build it? I said: Because we don't want to rebuild it the same way because it didn't withstand an earthquake. It is kind of a ``duh'' moment. You don't want to spend taxpayer money rebuilding a flawed piece of infrastructure. Make it strong, and make it resilient. That is what we have to do. For the first time, we are going to make sure this happens. We require the National Academy of Sciences and the GAO to evaluate options for reducing risk. It is not only the Corps going out there. They are going to depend upon the scientists and they are going to depend upon the GAO, the Government Accountability Office. The bill authorizes investment in vital ecosystem restoration projects across this Nation. These projects not only preserve our precious natural heritage, they also provide essential benefits to local communities, such as improved flood protection and a boost to local tourism. A lot of people don't understand the function of a wetland. You see a stretch of wetland and you say: Wow, that is flat land. I can go build on it. Frankly, over the course of our great Nation's history, that is what we used to do. We filled in those wetlands. We ignored the fact that they were a gift for us to protect. Not only were they beautiful, a place for wildlife, and they helped the air quality, but they acted as natural flood control. When we hear Senator Landrieu discuss this--I went to Louisiana, and I saw how critical that was. The wetlands restoration is critical to absorbing the floodwaters so they don't destroy property and lives. WRRDA continues the commitment to restoring one of the Nation's greatest environmental treasures--the Florida Everglades. If you have never seen the Florida Everglades, you need to see the Florida Everglades. It is called a river of grass. It is extraordinary. I will never forget it. Senator Nelson invited my husband and me. He, his wife, my husband, and I went out, saw this river of grass, flora and fauna, and deer jumping from a little patch of grass in the water. It is a miracle from God. What we do is we allow four Everglades restoration projects to move forward. We also reauthorize important restoration programs in the Chesapeake Bay and the Columbia River Basin. I thank Senator Cardin for his amazing leadership and, of course, Senator Mikulski as well. We enable the Corps to work with the States along the North Atlantic coast to restore vital coastal habitats from Virginia to Maine, and we allow the Corps to implement projects to better prepare for extreme weather in the Northern Rocky Mountain States of Montana and Idaho. If you have been following this speech, I think what you will recognize is how broad a swath we cut with the WRRDA bill. We truly tried to step back and help everybody. This is one Nation, and we need to take care of our heritage. That means we have to protect it from floods and hurricanes, we have to make sure commerce can move forward from our ports, and we want to restore this God-given environment we are supposed to protect. We direct the Corps to give priority to ecosystem restoration projects that will also provide benefits for public health. This ensures that projects such as the restoration of the Salton Sea--where I live--which both restores vital habitat and addresses serious air- quality concerns, can move forward. The Salton Sea is amazing. It is an incredible lake. It is the stop- off point for the most amazing array of wildlife. It is drying up. If it continues to go this way, it will not only be a disaster for the wildlife, but it will be a disaster for the people because the odors that are coming from this drying-up sea float all the way to Los Angeles, where we have millions of people. And the jobs we could create there with clean energy and other types of development--we have to move on that. So I was excited to see that everyone agrees that if you have a body of water that is deteriorating, that, if you don't pay attention to it, could cause a public health crisis, then it should have some kind of a priority. The conference report also addresses important ocean and coastal resiliency issues, allowing the Corps to carry out ocean and coastal resiliency projects in coordination with a broad range of stakeholders, including States, Federal agencies, and NGOs. I compliment Sheldon Whitehouse for the work he put into this provision. It is very important. Our oceans and our coasts are not only magnificent gifts, but they truly are important to our economy. People who come to California like to see the whole State, but people gravitate to the coast. It is so magnificent, and we have to make sure we treat our coasts and oceans right. That means making sure that if they are endangered, we do something about it. This is a first. This is exciting for Sheldon Whitehouse, and I am very thrilled to have been able to help him. I have to give a shout-out to Senator Reid, without whom this provision wouldn't have made it in the bill. We were down to that one issue. We had taken care of 150 issues, but we were down to that one issue. Leader Reid was able to help us. And I thank the House for working with us. I don't know how many of you have heard of TIFIA, which is a program we expanded in the highway bill. What it does is it leverages funds. So if our States or localities in our States passed a half-cent sales tax to build transportation, the Federal Government now has a way, through the TIFIA Program, to come around up front, take a project that has, say, 20 years of revenue coming in, pay that up-front cost right there, and build that project quickly. We did the same for water. We call it WIFIA, and it is a new initiative. We hope that it will be interesting to folks and that they will use it. We will assist localities in need of loans for flood control or wastewater and drinking water infrastructure to receive those loans from this new funding mechanism, the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act. WIFIA will allow localities an opportunity to move forward with water infrastructure projects in the same way TIFIA does in transportation. Where there is a local source of funding, the Federal Government can front those funds. The TIFIA Program is working so well. I just went to an amazing press conference with the folks from Los Angeles. They have been given an $800 million TIFIA loan that is enabling them to build a subway. It is very exciting, and the Federal Government has no risk--almost zero risk--because the funds will be paid back from the sales tax. These new WIFIA funding arrangements supplement existing programs to help leverage more investment in our Nation's aging infrastructure. The conference report also updates the Clean Water State Revolving Fund to ensure that our existing sources of water infrastructure funding are able to continue to meet pressing needs. Chief's reports: The conference report authorizes 34 critical Army Corps projects where the Chief of Engineers has completed a comprehensive study. This was an absolute necessity for the Senate. The House and Senate came at this in a very different way. Their priority was making sure they could hold hearings on all the chief's reports. Our priority was saying: Look, we are not going to go ahead with any project that doesn't have a completed chief's report. So that is the ``r'' for reform--their reform, making sure Congress holds the hearings; our reform, making sure that we include completed chief's reports. We are very happy about these chief's reports. They are all over the Nation. I gave some examples in the beginning of my statement. These projects will restore vital ecosystems, preserve our natural heritage, and maintain navigation routes for commerce and movement of goods. In the future, looking forward, how are we going to continue, because these WRDA bills come every 7 years. It is very slow. What is a better way to deal with the future needs of our States? We developed a system with the House that allows local sponsors--such as someone from the State of the Presiding Officer, a flood control agency in the State--to make their case now directly to the Army Corps, and then the Corps would recommend those projects to Congress. It is interesting that we took ourselves--because of the earmark ban--out of the picture. It allows people from Fargo, from Los Angeles, from Humboldt--wherever they are from--to go and see the Corps and make the case for their project. Then the Corps would say: We sat down with these local officials. There are 10 or 15 projects we think are important. That is going to be a new way we are going to give more local input. I am very excited and happy to be standing on the floor today on this issue because it was 1 year ago almost to the day that the Senate passed the Boxer-Vitter WRDA bill by a vote of 83 to 14. It was just over 1 year ago. It has been 1 year--1 year of being in conference; 1 year of struggling with issue after issue; 1 year of people saying: That is it, we are done, we are walking out the door--wait, come back. It has been a year. When you read how a bill becomes a law, it sounds so simple. It says the House passes a bill, then the Senate passes a bill, then there are conferees and they get together and they work it out, and then it comes back and everyone is smiling and happy and they pass it, and then the bill goes to the President. Well, it is not exactly that way. It is a lot of give and take. Sometimes you do have a bill that is not as complex as these here, and it can go smoothly. But how a bill becomes a law depends on who is in the room, it depends on what is happening nationwide, it depends on who the President is, and so many different things. But we were able to do this. So 1 year ago we passed it in the Senate, and tomorrow, I believe, we are going to pass the conference report. The agreement will cost roughly the same as the Senate-passed bill and well below the last WRDA bill. One might ask why? Well, it is because as we authorized new projects, we deauthorized old projects. And that is important. We were able to go better than one-for-one in deauthorizing and authorizing. Also, we had a very good talk with the CBO--the Congressional Budget Office. It is rare I have ever said a ``good talk'' with the CBO, because while the Presiding Officer is very good at accounting--a genius at that--I can tell you they do not make any sense to me. But Senator Vitter and I were actually able to persuade them on this bill to be realistic in the way we score it. If a State isn't going to be able to come up with their matching funds for 10 years, don't put this in as a cost in the first year. So the CBO was very open to working with us, and for that I thank them. It is a rarity, putting common sense on the table. In closing, I thank all of the staff on both sides of the aisle who put in countless hours to develop this bipartisan, bicameral agreement. They didn't just work until midnight, 3 a.m., they worked on it 24/7 for all these months. I thank Bettina Poirier, my incredible chief of staff of the EPW Committee, my chief counsel, our guiding light, our guiding star; Jason Albritton, who is here with me today, who has worked nonstop, and will continue to do it until it is over, right, and get it ready for the President to sign; and Ted Illston, who is on the floor and is a wonderful, wonderful staffer; and Tyler Rushforth. These are the key people on my staff. One would think it would be 20 or 30 more, but it is not. It is this handful of people who made this happen for all of us. I have to say I got to know Senator Vitter's staff so well, and we laughed at times. There was some irony involved in all of this. I would like to thank Zak Baig, Charles Brittingham, Chris Tomassi on Senator Vitter's staff. And Senator Vitter himself. Again, we were able to set aside a lot of differences we have on climate, on environment, on clean air, clean water, safe drinking water, where we go at it--nuclear power safety. We go at it. But we were able to say for the good of the people, we have to show people we can set aside our differences and come together. We did it here, we did it on the highway bill, and now it is time for the Senate to show the American people we can truly come together and pass this bill. I do want to show one more thing before I leave the floor, and that is some of the organizations that have supported us and that support this bill. I can't read them all; it would take too long, but I will highlight some of these: the AFL-CIO, Transportation Trades Department, the American Association of Port Authorities, the American Concrete Pavement Association--I am passing over a lot of these--the Associated General Contractors of America, the Association of California Water Agencies, the Association of State Dam Safety Officials, the American Road and Transportation Builders Association, the American Farm Bureau Federation. Let me give a few more. These are the supporters. The Arkansas Waterways Commission, the Big River Coalition, the City of Sacramento, the City of Los Angeles, Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute, the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund Fairness Coalition, the International Union of Operating Engineers, the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, the National League of Cities, the National Governors Association, the National Asphalt Paving Association, and the National Association of Clean Water Agencies. The list goes on. Here are a few more, in case anyone is interested. The National Ready Mix Concrete Association, the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, the National Stone, Sand, and Gravel Association, the Santa Clara Valley Water District, The Nature Conservancy, the Texas Department of Transportation, the United Association of Plumbers and Pipefitters, the U.S. Society of Dams, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Vinyl Institute, the Water Resources Coalition, the Waterways Council, Inc. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the entire list of these supporters.

Mrs. BOXER. To those who are listening as I read from this list, it did include the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, it did include the AFL-CIO, Transportation Trades Department, which is so encouraging, and the National Governors Association. And I guess I will read this one: The nation's governors applaud Congress for reaching an agreement that provides states with the resources to address their critical water infrastructure needs . . . governors urge the House and Senate to pass the WRRDA conference report and send it to the President for signature as soon as possible. I want to say how much I endorse what the Governors said. Send this bill to the President as soon as possible. I would be remiss if I didn't mention Congressman Shuster, who heads my counterpart committee in the House. Congressman Shuster was a delight to work with, even when it got tough for me. We had some tough, tough disagreements, but he stuck with it. I also want to congratulate him on his victory yesterday, and I want to tell him, through this statement, how much I look forward to working with him on the Transportation bill. If we can do this, we can do that. That is important because we have to keep America moving. We are the greatest Nation on Earth, but you can't be the greatest Nation on Earth if you don't have modern water infrastructure, if your cities are flooding, if your ports can't move products. You can't. And you certainly can't have a great nation when you cannot have a highway system that functions, a transportation system that functions. You can't. There is no such thing. Because if you can't move commerce, if you can't move people, you can't move America forward. I will say again, my deepest thanks to staff, my deepest thanks to Senator Vitter, my deepest thanks to Senator Carper, to my entire committee, Senator Barrasso, to Congressman Shuster, to Senator Reid, to all of you, because this was one of those labors of love in which we all engage. We all wanted a bill, and we put away our little side arguments, came together, and now we have a bill that is a multibillion-dollar bill that will build our Nation and that is going to help our commerce and it is going to put 500,000 people to work. I couldn't be happier. I look forward to this vote tomorrow. One more person I will thank: Congressman Nick Rahall, who worked as the ranking member with Mr. Shuster. The two of them were a great team, and we were able to cut across the partisan divide, cut across the House-Senate divide, tough as it was. It is a great day. It is a great day in the U.S. Senate and in the Congress, and I look forward to the President's signing this bill. With that, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, we yield back all of our time.

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

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Dr. Charles Monell as he retires from the Rancho Mirage Library Advisory Commission after two decades of service and dedication to the library and the community it serves. Throughout a long and distinguished career in medicine, including as the chief of surgery at the Beverly Glen Hospital in Los Angeles, Dr. Monell also gave generously of his time to a variety of charitable causes, especially those supporting music and education. Being particularly devoted to supporting public libraries, Dr. Monell served on the California State Library Commission for 14 years prior to retiring from medicine in 1992 and becoming a full-time resident of Rancho Mirage, which was working to establish its first public library. In 1993, Dr. Monell was appointed to the Rancho Mirage Public Library Planning Committee, and led the effort to convert a former bank building into the first library. On January 6, 1996, as chairman of the new Rancho Mirage Public Library Commission, he introduced President Gerald Ford for the ribbon-cutting ceremony and formal opening of the Rancho Mirage Public Library. The library was up and running, but Dr. Monell did not stop there. In 2003, he secured a gift of $2 million from the Annenberg Foundation to purchase land for a new and larger Rancho Mirage Public Library, which opened on January 6, 2006--10 years to the day after the first library opening. Dr. Monell has shared his lifelong love of music with the library and the community. With his personal contributions and fundraising efforts, he helped the library purchase a Steinway concert grand piano and sponsored concert performances by the acclaimed musicians of the Idyllwild Arts Academy. He has also donated his personal Civil War library to the Rancho Mirage Library, and generously made possible a private study room in the library for the community to use. On May 12, the Library Advisory Commission honored Dr. Monell for his extraordinary devotion to the library and his 18 years of service on the commission. On June 5, Mayor Iris Smotrich will present Dr. Monell with a proclamation from the City of Rancho Mirage in appreciation of his distinguished service. I am pleased to join them in saluting Dr. Charles Monell for his dedicated and inspiring service to the community of Rancho Mirage.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 21, 2014, at 2:30 p.m.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 21, 2014, at 2:30 p.m. in room SR-253 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled ``Delivering Better Health Care Value to Customers: the First Three Years of the Medical Loss Ratio''.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 21, 2014, at 2 p.m. in room SD-215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 21, 2014, at 10 a.m., to hold a hearing entitled ``Authorization For Use of Military Force After Iraq And Afghanistan.''

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 21, 2014, at 10 a.m.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 21, 2014, in room SD-628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Indian Education Series: Ensuring the Bureau of Indian Education has the Tools Necessary to Improve.''

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on May 21, 2014, at 10 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Oversight of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.''

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 21, 2014, at 2:15 p.m., to hold an African Affairs and East Asian and Pacific Affairs subcommittee hearing entitled, ``The Escalating International Wildlife Trafficking Crisis: Ecological, Economic and National Security Issues.''

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Personnel of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 21, 2014, at 10 a.m.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy of the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 21, 2014, at 10 a.m., in room SD-215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Strengthening Social Security to Meet the Needs of Tomorrow's Retirees.''

Mrs. BOXER

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

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, under the order I ask unanimous consent for 20 minutes to address the Senate.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise to urge Senator Reid to say a very clear no to the request by 37 Republicans that we create a new Senate select committee on Benghazi. I was astounded to see 37 Republicans-- many of whom have worked on this issue with me and Senator Menendez on the Foreign Relations Committee--essentially make this request at a time when we have so much information already on Benghazi. To spend the funds for this separate committee--in addition to the one the House has set up--doesn't make sense unless you believe, as I do, that this is all a political witch hunt. The attacks of September 11, 2012, in Benghazi that took the lives of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, were a tragedy. After such a tragedy, we should all come together and make certain that this never happens again, but we should not play politics. Instead of focusing and agreeing on how we can prevent future attacks against U.S. personnel overseas--as they have had an opportunity to do by adding more funding for diplomatic posts to protect our people--the Republicans want to turn the Benghazi-Libya tragedy into a scandal. That is scandalous. The way they are handling this issue is a scandal. The American people are smart. I have seen recent polls, and they get it. More than 60 percent--and I will look that up again--say this is all about politics; it is not about anything else. I wish to explain to the American people what we have done about this tragedy. Over the last 20 months, these attacks have received unprecedented scrutiny. I have a chart I wish to share that explains it. We have had nine House and Senate investigations on Benghazi. We have conducted 17 hearings. We have held 50--5-0--briefings. We have conducted 25 interviews, issued 8 subpoenas, and reviewed 25,000 pages of documents. There are 25,000 pages of documents that have been reviewed. We have had six reports released. All of these little boxes represented here show the various hearings, the various committees, the various briefings, the various documents. We look at this chart and realize this is unprecedented. Nine different House and Senate committees have investigated the attacks. Seventeen hearings have been conducted. Fifty briefings have taken place. Twenty-five transcribed interviews have been conducted. Eight subpoenas have been issued. More than 25,000 pages of documents have been reviewed, and 6 congressional reports have been released. I have gone over this a couple of times this morning because I want to make sure the Record reflects all of this accurately. In case that is not enough to convince the people of this country what a witch hunt the Republicans are on, I will show my colleagues a partial viewing of the materials, if my colleagues will excuse me while I bend down. That is just one stack of binders. All of these binders are filled--filled--with all of the information that came out of these reports. So before people get up here and say, Oh, we need more information, how about reading what we already have: stacks and stacks of information. Within these binders are the reports and the testimony Congress has already heard over the last 20 months, but my Republican friends would have us believe none of this happened and none of what the chart depicts happened. They are not satisfied with exhaustive reviews, much of which was conducted by House Republican committee Chairs, by the way. They walk away from their own work because they are playing politics. They should be proud of the work they did, but this isn't about the work they did. It is about playing politics. It is about hurting people--hurting people. Benghazi was a tragedy. We lost four beautiful, patriotic Americans. Don't turn it into a scandal. I guess these filled binders were not enough for them in the House of Representatives. I will take these down now. This wasn't enough for them: 9 committees, 17 hearings, 50 briefings, 25 interviews, 8 subpoenas, 25,000 pages of documents, 6 reports. All of this was not enough for them. The House set up a new select committee and, again, 37 of my Republican friends now want their own select committee. That is right; they want two new committees to investigate what has been investigated, investigated, and investigated. A person doesn't need a degree in political science to know what a political witch hunt looks like. All a person needs to do is to look at this and a person understands. This is a campaign tactic by my Republican colleagues to gin up their base ahead of the midterm election and, by the way, look ahead to 2016, where they are filled with anxiety at the thought that the former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, may be the Democratic nominee. This is a campaign tactic, this call for these committees. We know Republicans have been actively fundraising off this tragedy. That is right; they have been fundraising off this tragedy. When Speaker Boehner was asked about it, all he did was walk away from the question. I watched that interview. It was painful. They said: Aren't you going to stop the fundraising? He said: We are just interested in the facts. They said: Aren't you going to stop this fundraising? He said: We are just interested in the facts. Answer the question. We know it is a political witch hunt because before he was minding his Ps and Qs, the House Select Committee chairman suggested the administration should be put on ``trial'' over Benghazi--put on trial. We also know the House GOP refused House minority leader Nancy Pelosi's offer to put an equal number of Democrats and Republicans on the panel. Oh, no, because it is a political witch hunt and they want total control over that committee. Here is one issue I know the select committee won't be investigating in the House, and that is the budget cuts House Republicans made to security at our embassies and at our consulates, at our diplomatic posts around the world--cuts that Republicans actually boasted about making. Here in the Senate, we have tried to get through an embassy security bill by unanimous consent and they objected I don't know how many times--a couple of times. So we are not going to see an investigation into why the Republicans thought it was wise to cut spending on embassy security. Oh, no, they won't look at that. One Congressman in the House was asked by CNN whether the GOP cut embassy security, because the reporter was incredulous, and this Congressman said: Absolutely. Look, we have to make priorities and choices. You have to prioritize things. So, clearly, this particular Member of Congress was proud they cut embassy security; but, believe me, they are not going to be investigating that in their investigative committee. I will tell my colleagues what else they are not going to investigate. They are not going to investigate the tragedy and the scandal of more than 4,000 Americans killed in the Iraq war based on phony intelligence--4,000 Americans dead, based on phony intelligence. I never heard one call for a select committee to find out why that happened. And that ignores the tens of thousands of wounded, some with post-traumatic stress, and all the problems we know are happening. Here is something else they won't tell us. Between 1998 and 2013, there were at least 501 significant attacks against U.S. diplomatic facilities and personnel in 70 countries, resulting in the deaths of 586 people, including 67 Americans. During the Bush administration, there were 166 attacks which killed 116 people, including 18 Americans. All of these attacks were terrible tragedies, but not one of them was exploited for political gain. Why would we exploit a tragedy where an American got killed for political gain? We could have done it. I was serving in the House back in 1983. I know that is probably close to when the Presiding Officer was born. I was serving in the House in 1983 when a truck bomb exploded outside the Marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, killing 241 American servicemembers. The attack came just 6 months after 17 Americans were killed in the bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut. Let me tell my colleagues about how that was handled by then-Speaker Tip O'Neill when Ronald Reagan was President. Tip O'Neill conducted real oversight with the two parties working closely together. Within 2 months, the House stepped forward--Democrats and Republicans--and produced a report that criticized the lax security around the barracks and called for new measures to keep our brave military men and women safe. That is the way we should handle these things, not a kangaroo court, not a political witch hunt, not a partisan investigation. Let's face it. This is politics. They are about discrediting the Obama administration and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. I repeat: Never in history, to my knowledge--and I have gone back and back--has any political party done what they are doing on Benghazi. There is disinformation. They say: Well, the President kept saying it was because of the movie that was produced. The President stepped forward and in his first comment said the attacks were acts of terror. That is his quote. We never hear that from the Republicans. He called them acts of terror. I will tell my colleagues what else they forget to mention: that Secretary Clinton was the first person to convene an independent investigation of the attacks. Let me reiterate. The very first person to convene an independent investigation of the attacks in Benghazi was Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The independent investigation was nonpartisan. It was called an investigation by the Accountability Review Board. It was chaired by Ambassador Thomas Pickering and Admiral Michael Mullen. Talk about a nonpartisan team. I can attest to the fact they are nonpartisan. I am privileged to sit on the Foreign Relations Committee. I am the most senior member on that committee. I will tell my colleagues these two gentlemen came forward and delivered their report. They talked very openly and honestly about the systemic problems that undermined security in Benghazi. And guess what happened after that report. Secretary Clinton and the State Department quickly accepted all 29 of those recommendations and put them into place--first under Secretary Clinton and now Secretary Kerry. So let me say this again. There is this call for this political witch hunt because they want to hurt Hillary Clinton, and Hillary Clinton was the first person to convene an independent investigation that made 29 recommendations that she started to put in place, and Secretary Kerry is completing that task. Unbelievable. But we won't hear that from our Republican friends. They want to make Benghazi into a scandal, but they are the scandal. That is the scandal: playing politics with a tragedy. That is the scandal. The Senate Intelligence Committee produced a bipartisan report based on dozens of committee hearings, briefings, and interviews--that is in here as well--that highlighted the need to better respond to security threats against our diplomatic posts and personnel around the world. Instead of going over all of these reports--I showed my colleagues how many there are, and this chart demonstrates that as well in a very clear way how many investigations that have been conducted--instead of focusing on protecting Americans serving abroad by carrying out the recommendations of these reports, my colleagues are obsessing over talking points prepared for a Sunday TV show. There is nothing in the thousands of documents released that even remotely suggests an attempt to cover up what happened in Benghazi. As I said, the President said they were acts of terror. Hillary Clinton launched the investigation. The investigation made 29 recommendations. This new select committee request is a sham. It is a kangaroo court. It is a waste of taxpayer dollars. If Senate Republicans really wanted to help protect the men and women who bravely serve our country overseas, they would stop objecting to our request to take up our bipartisan embassy security bill. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee passed S. 1386. It is named after Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods, and Glen Doherty. It is called the Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods, and Glen Doherty Embassy Security Threat Mitigation and Personnel Protection Act. It was passed and reported in December of last year. It was authored by Senators Menendez and Corker. I thank them for that. This bill will authorize funding for key measures recommended by the Accountability Review Board, including security upgrades at our embassies, consulates, and other diplomatic posts, especially high-risk posts. It also authorizes new funding for security training, including language training for high-threat security environments. It would direct the Secretary of State to expand the Marine Corps security guard detachment program to help protect our diplomatic facilities and personnel. Why do the Republicans keep objecting to this bill? You cannot, with a straight face, tell me you truly care about our foreign personnel when you stand in the way of S. 1386, a bill to provide for enhanced security, a bill that is bipartisan, a bill that came out of the committee on which I serve, Foreign Relations. I hope other colleagues will come down and talk about this sham. We have so much to do. We need to grieve for the families, the deaths of four Americans. Their loss is deep, very deep. To turn that into some investigation, some witch hunt, is not the right thing to do for their memories. The right thing to do for their memories is to pass this embassy security bill. I do not know how to say it, but it does cost money to make upgrades to your home, to your buildings. We are here in the Capitol, we protect and upgrade these beautiful buildings because of their history. We have to upgrade our buildings. That does not come free. It does cost money. Yet House Republicans were bragging that they cut embassy security. So I am going to talk about this a lot because I care so deeply about making sure our personnel are safe all over the world. Until they allow this bill to go through, I truly question the deep concerns that are being expressed by my Republican friends. Oh, they need yet another committee to get to the bottom of Benghazi. We know what happened. It was a terror attack on a facility that needed more protection. OK? How do we make sure that does not happen again? We have had more than 500 attacks--significant attacks--on our facilities since 1998, between 1998 and 2013 over 500 attacks. Never has anyone of any party tried to play politics with it. The reason I am so, shall we say, upset with this is because it is the wrong way to move forward. People look at us and they wonder if we can get anything done. I am so proud. I have a very important water resources bill coming up. We worked so well together across the aisle. We did a highway bill. We worked so well across the aisle. Why don't we do what we did when Tip O'Neill was Speaker and work well across the aisle on foreign policy? When I was coming up, foreign policy basically stopped at the water's edge. We respected the President, whoever it may be, Republican or Democrat. If we had a critique, we expressed it, but we did it in a way that was, if I can just say, less partisan. I will leave you with the image of this chart. This chart says it all. We have investigated this. We have looked at it. We have conducted hearings and briefings and interviews and issued subpoenas and reviewed documents and issued reports. We do not need to spend money on another committee because someone is afraid of Hillary Clinton's candidacy. Just deal with it. Do not try to revise history. She was the first person to convene an independent investigation to begin to put the pieces into play that would in fact make sure this did not happen again. Don't say you care about embassy security when you stand and oppose a bipartisan bill that would make sure we make the requisite improvements to our facilities? I hope Harry Reid, our leader, will not say yes to a committee that is nothing but a political witch hunt. I will continue to come down to the floor to discuss this issue, to debate this issue if it is necessary to do so. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 20, 2014, at 10:15 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC.