Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Thank you, Mr. President. Here it is. This one in The Hill is quoting Captain Sullenberger: ``Fatigue is a killer''. . . . ``It's time to right this wrong. It's time to fix this rule.'' Here is another quote in the New York Daily News, with a picture of Captain Sullenberger saying: ``This is not a partisan issue, it is a science-based commonsense issue.'' He said cargo pilots generally fly at night and deserve the same sleep standards already guaranteed to passenger pilots-- flights limited to eight or nine hours and minimum of 10-hour rest periods. ``It is really just flat wrong (to exclude cargo pilots). They're the ones who need it most. They have their natural circadian rhythms disrupted the most.'' Just standing next to the guy was a thrill for me. Captain Sullenberger told the News: ``If you're home in the evening when hundreds of cargo airplanes are flying overhead, it doesn't matter if those planes are carrying people or packages. It matters that their pilots are alert enough to do their job safely,'' the retired U.S. Airways captain said. Do you know what Sullenberger said? He said that ``it's doubtful he and his crew could have landed U.S. Airways Flight 1549 in the Hudson River on January 15, 2009--saving all 155 souls--if they were deprived of sleep.'' Look, we can all put ourselves in a situation, whether we are young-- and the young can take lack of sleep a lot better. As we age, it is tougher. I used to take the redeye all the time, and I can state that I felt it for days. Do we want to have a pilot in a circumstance where he or she is sleep deprived and they find themselves in an emergency? I don't think so. None other than Sullenberger said that he is doubtful he and his crew could have landed that flight if they were sleep deprived. He said again--this is in another article from the Daily News. He said: ``I get daily reminders of that remarkable day. So many people rose to the occasion--the crew, all the rescue workers,'' he said. ``It was the result of the efforts of many people, but I've become the public face . . . and had I been fatigued, we could not have performed at that level.'' This is the classic case of a no-brainer. The people who fly the airplanes are telling us that fatigue is a killer. They are telling us in a circumstance of emergencies that they will not be able to function. We have an opportunity to fix it, but we don't have a vote right now. We don't have a vote. As I understand it, we might have a vote, but they may then say to vote on two other issues that are poison pill issues. That is the way it goes around here. Someday I am going to write a book called ``How a Bill Really Becomes a Law.'' The truth is that is how it goes around here. If one wants to vote on something, then they say: Swallow a porcupine, and maybe we will give you a vote. Now here is another one. ``Miracle on the Hudson Pilot Pushes More Rest for Cargo Crews.'' He and I are standing there, and all I am saying is: We just need a vote on this, and you know if people want to come down in the well and vote the wrong way on safety, then they have shown themselves . . . [but], frankly, they are putting the lives of people at risk. And I am asking for a vote. Again, Sully Sullenberger is quoted: ``Let me be very direct: Fatigue is a killer. . . . It's a ruthless indiscriminate killer that our industry and our regulators have allowed to continue killing for way too long.'' This is not partisan. I have a Democratic administration who did the wrong thing on this. I have a Republican Senate that is not giving me a vote on this. Come on. When people die in an airplane crash, we don't know if they are Democrats or Republicans; we just know we cry our hearts out for the families. I am going to show you the crashed plane again. This is what happens when there is fatigue. This is what can happen. There have been many of these crashes because the pilots are flying on 5 hours of sleep. All I am asking for is a vote. Give us a vote. If you want to vote it down, vote it down. You will be judged. That is OK. That is your problem, not mine. I want to praise Senator Klobuchar, who is the coauthor of this amendment. She was very effective in her comments both in the committee and at the presser yesterday. Sullenberger, the ``Hero of the Hudson,'' said this in this other article: ``This rule was written the way it was, not for scientific reasons, but for economic ones, by those who are more concerned about an additional burden that they consider an additional cost. It's time to right this wrong. It's time to fix this rule.'' You know, those of us who have been around a long time remember the Ford Pinto. That car exploded when there was a crash. I think a lot of us remember it. When discovery was done by the attorneys for the victims, they found out the cold and calculating ways the corporation viewed these accidents and losses of life. Oh, they said, we can stand X number of accidents a year, no problem, because we have insurance. It will not affect us. But, gee, it will cost us X number of dollars to fix the problem. What could be more callous? What could be more cold? It is the same thing here. It is the companies. Do you know what is fascinating? The airlines that now operate under the 9-hour rule--I will put up the chart that shows the two planes with the different times. The airlines that now fly their pilots up to 9 hours a day, compared to the cargo plane owners who permit their pilots to work up to 16 hours a day, they--the airline industry is doing great. They never said word one of a problem. They had rested pilots, they had happier crews, and they are doing fine. So why is it that we get letters from the corporations that fly these planes--God forbid we should tell them to give their pilots rest. I want to tell you who is on our side. The Southwest Airlines Pilot Association--this thrills me--just sent us a letter: On behalf of the more than 8,000 pilots-- This is actually to Senator Thune-- I urge you to include Senator Barbara Boxer's Safe Skies Act in the FAA reauthorization. They say: It fixes a huge safety gap that exists in our air transportation today. They talk about the Colgan Air crash in 2009. We took action to fix the problem on passenger planes, but it was inexplicable that it was left out of the cargo planes. As pilots, they say safety is their No. 1 priority. They say: ``We cannot do our job if we are not all held to the same safety standard. A tired and fatigued pilot is a danger to everyone in their path.'' That is the point. These passenger pilots are rested; the cargo pilots are fatigued. They fly in the same sky, in the same airspace. They try to land at the same airports. Having this disparity is a nightmare. They say: ``Please, do not let another tragedy be the reason for action. This is your chance to fix the cargo carve-out and ensure safe skies in this nation.'' I thank these pilots for weighing in on this issue. It means a lot to me that they did it. The Coalition of Airline Pilots Associations talks about the Klobuchar amendment, which is this amendment, and they ask us to please allow this vote. They say: ``We cannot continue operating with two levels of safety and we sincerely hope you are able to fix the cargo carve-out once and for all.'' We urge your support for this amendment. I thank so much Captain Michael Karn, president of the Coalition of Airline Pilots Associations. You know, I want to say to my colleagues who might be listening from their offices: We get on planes all the time. We have 100-percent faith in the pilot. We all do. They have the responsibility of getting us to our families safely. Every single pilots association is saying to us: Fix this carve-out. It is dangerous. Any of us could be on a passenger plane just doing great with the rested pilot, and somehow a cargo plane crashes into us because that pilot had 5 hours of sleep. So we have all of these letters from the Independent Pilots Association, the Allied Pilots Association, the International Brothers of Teamsters, Teamsters Local 1224, Teamsters Local 357. They are all saying the same thing: We cannot do our job if we are not all held to the same safety standard. A tired and fatigued pilot is a danger to everyone. Don't let another tragedy be the reason for action. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record two letters I have referred to.

Mrs. BOXER. I know people are saying: Barbara, why are you being so tough and not letting us vote on other things? I have to say this: If we don't use this occasion to fix a problem that is listed as the No. 1 safety issue by the NTSB, and we can do it in 2 minutes--I have spoken my piece. You know, one of my staffers said she explained to her 6-year-old child what the issue is because he is always interested in what she is working on. She said: Jacob, the fact is, the planes are the same size, and the man who is flying this one and the lady flying this one get different hours of rest. I see that my friend from Florida, the great ranking member of the Commerce Committee, might want to ask a question.

Mrs. BOXER. Yes, I will.

Mrs. BOXER. Well, if I could respond through the Chair, the words of my colleague are very hopeful. I just hope it is not tied to some poison pills that other people have a problem with. You never know around here what is going to happen. In my view--and I know the Senator shares it because I know his passion is with me on this--the fact is, this should be an up-or-down vote. It should not be related to other things. It is the No. 1 safety issue of the NTSB. My friend from Florida is like a brother to me, and we counsel each other on issues on which we have some expertise. I know he is in there fighting to get a vote. I am so grateful to him. I have added a whole bunch of support for this. I will close at this point because I think my friend has given me some hope. I am going to close reading the recording. I don't know--I ask Senator Nelson, did you ever hear this? I want to make sure you did. This will take just a moment. This is from the excerpt from the flight deck before a plane went down: Pilot 1: I mean, I don't get that. You know, it should be one level for everybody. These are words from the grave. Pilot 2: It makes no sense at all. Pilot 1: No, it doesn't. Pilot 2: To be honest, it should be across the board. To be honest, in my opinion, whether you are flying passengers or cargo, if you are flying this time of day, you know fatigue is definitely-- Pilot 1: Yeah, yeah. Pilot 2: When my alarm went off, I mean, I'm thinking I'm so tired. Pilot 1: I know. Now, when this happened, I thought for sure that our administration would take care of this and change that rule. They didn't. That is why we are here. I wanted everyone to know this: Sometimes it is hard to look at something like this, but it is harder to look at the final result of what happened from fatigue. This is what happened within minutes of that conversation. People could not function. Captain Sullenberger said it well: Fatigue is a killer. We could fix it here today. We fixed it--Olympia Snowe and I--years ago for passenger aircraft. We need to fix it for cargo pilots. They deserve our support and the support of people who rely on them--all of us--because they share the sky with the passenger aircraft. We need to fix this. I thank the Senator from Florida. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the life of California Highway Patrol Officer Nathan Daniel Taylor, a beloved husband, father, brother, son, and grandson who tragically lost his life in the line of duty on March 13, 2016. Officer Taylor was born on January 17, 1981, in Baltimore, MD. His family later moved to Loomis, CA, where Officer Taylor was an active member of the Boy Scouts, earning the highest rank of Eagle Scout. After graduating from Del Oro High School, Officer Taylor attended Brigham Young University on a full academic scholarship and received a bachelor's degree in history. He spent 2 years in Venezuela serving as a church missionary before joining the California Highway Patrol, continuing his commitment to helping those in need. Officer Taylor completed cadet training in 2010 and was assigned to the San Jose area office before transferring to the Gold Run area in 2013. Colleagues fondly recalled Officer Taylor's tremendous service to the public, offering examples of his selflessness and compassion. ``Officer Taylor was the most genuine, honest officer I knew,'' said CHP Officer Josh Webb. ``He would literally give the shirt off his back for somebody.'' His ability to go above and beyond the call of duty also earned the appreciation and affection of the community he served. In fact, he received so many thank-you letters from the public that his colleagues joked that he must have written them himself. Officer Taylor truly embodied the very best of law enforcement, and his courageous service will be forever remembered. On behalf of the people of California, whom Officer Taylor served so bravely, I extend my gratitude and deepest sympathies to his wife, Becky; sons Preston, Wyatt, and Joshua; parents, Jeff and Linda; brothers Karl, Collin, and Steven; sister, Sarah; and grandparents, Karl and Virginia.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, as my friend, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, is leaving the floor, I want to thank him so much. I think the example of women's soccer is so perfect. People do not understand this disparity. Some say that many more people follow the women's soccer than the men's. I want to thank him for his leadership on that. I also want to say that when it comes to equal pay for equal work, you need to remember three numbers--just three numbers: 79 cents--that is one number. Remember that one and $11,000 and $400,000. OK. Remember 79 cents, $11,000, and $400,000. And 79 cents on the dollar is what the average woman makes compared to the average man. So the man makes $1; the woman makes 79 cents for the same work. We are not talking about different jobs; we are talking about the same. It costs the average woman and her family $11,000 a year. When you add up that disparity, it is $11,000 a year. Think of what that could buy for a family. And $400,000-plus is what the penalty is for the average woman against the average man in a lifetime--$400,000. That could translate into a retirement that is not stressful. We are going to be here later today talking about this. The Mikulski bill will resolve a lot of these problems. I hope we can get the Republicans to help us. You know, this Senate has a rating of about 18-percent approval. Well, it is because people don't see us doing anything to help the average person. Most women work. We have not even raised the minimum wage. These Republicans fight for the wealthy few. That is the problem. We have given them a beautiful way to deal with it: Sign onto Mikulski's bill.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, this morning, in addition to these comments that I just made, I want to talk about an amendment I am trying to get a vote on to the FAA bill, the Federal Aviation Administration bill, which is before us. This issue is another no-brainer. Later this morning, I will meet with Captain ``Sully'' Sullenberger. I think you remember him. He was the ``Hero of the Hudson.'' He was the one who miraculously landed U.S. Airways Flight 1549 on the Hudson River on January 15, 2009. Because of his incredible skill, he saved the lives of all 155 passengers and crew. When it comes to safety--safety, in terms of our pilots being able to think clearly and not be suffering from fatigue, who could be better than Captain Sullenberger? I am going to stand with him. I am going to explain the issue that he and I are fighting for. I first got into this issue--which is safety standards for all pilots--in 2009 when Colgan Airlines Flight 3407 crashed into a home near Buffalo, NY, killing 50 people. After that tragic crash, Senator Snowe and I wrote legislation that updated pilot and fatigue regulations. They had been written originally in the 1940s. Clearly, there is a lot of scientific research on what happens when you have a lack of rest. We needed to see a new rule. So, because of the efforts of Senator Snowe and me, the Department of Transportation issued a rule in 2011 to ensure adequate rest for passenger pilots, which was great. Shockingly, they left out cargo pilots. So I am going to show you a picture of two planes--two planes. Look at those planes. They look exactly the same. They share the same airspace, the same airports, and the same runways. But guess what? Because of the disparity in this rule from the FAA, the pilots are not treated the same. Now, passenger pilots cannot fly more than 9 hours in a day, while cargo pilots have been forced to fly up to 16 hours a day. Let me say it again. The rule that came out of the FAA said: If you are a passenger pilot, you can only fly up to 9 hours a day, but if you fly a cargo plane the same size, you can fly up to 16 hours a day. How does this make sense? It is dangerous. It is dangerous. I will show you how. But our top safety board, NTSB, the National Transportation Safety Board, has made reducing pilot fatigue a priority, mentioning it is on their top 10 list of most wanted safety requirements for years. So follow me. In 2011, we had the rule. The rule left out cargo pilots. Since then, I have been trying, along with colleagues Klobuchar, Cantwell, and others, to change this. Now, let's look at what Captain Sullenberger has said about this issue. He said it about our bill: You wouldn't want your surgeon operating on you after only 5 hours of sleep or your passenger pilot flying the airplane after only 5 hours of sleep. And you certainly wouldn't want a cargo pilot flying a large plane over your house at 3 a.m. on 5 hours of sleep, trying to find the airport and land. They are working up to 16 hours without adequate opportunity for rest, so what we say in our amendment is simple: We want parity. We want the same periods of flying time for both pilots. Now you say: Well, Senator Boxer, have there been any accidents? Yes. Since 1990, there have been 14 U.S. cargo plane crashes involving fatigue, including a UPS crash in Birmingham, AL, in 2013 that killed two crew members. In that tragedy, the NTSB cited pilot fatigue as a factor. Let's listen to the pilot conversation, which was retrieved after the crash. Let's hear what those pilots, who were exhausted, said to one another. Then, if the Senate does not want to have a vote on this, I am going to stand on my feet until we do because, for sure, one of these planes is going to crash, whether it is in California or Nebraska or Arkansas or anywhere else in this Nation. Listen to this. Pilot 1: I mean, I don't get it. You know, it should be one level of safety for everybody. Pilot 2: It makes no sense at all. Pilot 1: No, it doesn't at all. Pilot 2: And to be honest, it should be across the board. To be honest, in my opinion, whether you are flying passengers or cargo, if you are flying this time of day, you know, fatigue is definitely---- Pilot 1: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Pilot 2: When my alarm went off, I mean, I'm thinking, I'm so tired. Pilot 1: I know. Well, let's look at what happened to this plane after this conversation. Just look at what happened to this plane. I think it is important that everybody look at it. It went down. It went down. Now, when that flight went down, I honestly thought: The FAA is going to change. They are going to pass a rule. They are going to make sure that all pilots get that necessary rest. But they did not. They did not. One hour after that conversation I shared with you, Mr. President, this is what happened to that plane. This dangerous double standard risks lives in the air and on the ground, and it cannot continue. That is why our amendment and our bill, which we base the amendment on, are endorsed not only by Captain Sully but also by the Air Line Pilots Association, the Independent Pilots Association, the Coalition of Airline Pilots Associations, the Teamsters Aviation Division, and the Allied Pilots Association. Let me just ask a rhetorical question. If we don't listen to pilots, who are in those planes, on what they need to fly safely, who on Earth are we listening to? And yet I can't get a vote on this. So far, I can't get a vote. I am hoping I will. Let people stand in the well and vote against this safety provision, and the next time there is a crash, they will answer for it. Stand up and be counted. We need a vote on this provision. One level of safety for all pilots is one level of safety for the public. I am proud to stand with Captain Sullenberger and all the pilots in America and the organizations that represent them to say this: If this is an FAA bill, if this is the Federal aviation bill and we have all kinds of goodies and tax breaks and this and that in there--which is a whole other conversation--the least we can do is to stand up for safety. The least we can do is to stand up for safety. I will insist on a vote. I will stand on my feet until I get a vote, and I know the pilots are going to be all over this place today knocking on doors. The American people don't think we are doing anything for them. We have the worst rating. My friends beat up on President Obama, but he has the same ratings as Ronald Reagan during his time in the same timeframe--same ratings as Ronald Reagan, their hero. We are down in the gutter with our ratings because we put special interests ahead of the people. Now, maybe there are a few special interests that don't want to pay their pilots enough money, that don't want to give their pilots rest-- too bad. They are wrong. They are jeopardizing lives on the ground. It is penny-wise and pound-foolish to have someone suffering from pilot fatigue flying over your home wherever you live in America. All I want is a vote. I am just asking for a vote. So far, I do not have that commitment, but we are working hard. We are hoping to get it. That is why I came here today, and that is why I will be standing with Captain Sullenberger later this morning--to call for a vote to make sure that after 9 hours of flight, pilots get adequate rest--not after 16 hours--and to make sure there is parity, fairness, and equality between those flying a passenger jet and those flying a cargo jet. The fact of the matter is they share the same airspace, they fly over the same homes, and they deserve not to be exhausted as they maneuver their planes. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to four servicemembers from California or based in California who have died while serving our country in Operation Freedom's Sentinel and in Operation Inherent Resolve since I last entered names into the Record. TSgt Anthony E. Salazar, 40, of Hermosa Beach, CA, died April 13, 2015, at an air base in southwest Asia in a noncombat related incident. Technical Sergeant Salazar was assigned to the 577th Expeditionary Prime Base Engineer Emergency Force Squadron, 1st Expeditionary Civil Engineer Group, U.S. Air Forces Central Command. CAPT Jonathan J. Golden, 33, of Camarillo, CA, died October 2, 2015, in the crash of a C-130J Super Hercules aircraft at Jalalabad Airfield, Afghanistan. Captain Golden was assigned to the 39th Airlift Squadron, Dyess Air Force Base, TX. SGT Joseph F. Stifter, 30, of Glendale, CA, died January 28, 2016, at Al Asad Airbase, Al Anbar Province, Iraq, from wounds suffered when his armored HMMWV was involved in a roll-over accident. Sergeant Stifter was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 7th Field Artillery Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division, Fort Riley, KS. SSgt Louis F. Cardin, of Temecula, CA, died March 19, 2016, in northern Iraq, from wounds suffered when the enemy attacked his unit with rocket fire. Staff Sergeant Cardin was assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 6th Marine Regiment, 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit, Camp Lejeune, NC.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the 100th Anniversary of the Rotary Club of Fresno, an organization dedicated to public service in Central California. On March 1, 1916, Fresno Rotary became the ninth chartered Rotary in the State of California. The Rotary's first philanthropic project-- planting 1,000 olive trees along the Golden State Highway--marked the start of a century of public engagement and community service. Since then, the spirit of Fresno Rotary has left an unforgettable mark on some of the community's most iconic local landmarks and organizations, including the Old Fresno Water Tower, Storyland and Playland at Roeding Park, the Boys & Girls Club, the Salvation Army, and numerous schools and hospitals. The mission of Fresno Rotary goes far beyond the San Joaquin Valley. Over the years, the club has delivered thousands of wheelchairs and water treatment devices to those in need in developing countries and helped provide medical service to more than 100,000 residents living in a rural Mexican village. A hundred years after its founding, the Rotary Club of Fresno remains a testament to the vision, commitment, and contributions of generations of service-minded Fresno citizens who want to make a positive difference in the world. I want to express my sincere gratitude to the members and friends of Fresno Rotary for their dedicated service, and I am pleased to join in honoring this special anniversary.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the life of Jerry Enomoto, a devoted husband and beloved friend who passed away on January 17, 2016, at the age of 89. Jerry Enomoto was born and raised in San Francisco. In 1942, Jerry and his family were forcibly relocated to the Tule Lake Incarceration Camp as part of Executive Order 9066, one of the darkest chapters in our Nation's history. Despite being uprooted from Lowell College Preparatory High School, Jerry continued his studies and graduated as the valedictorian of his class while still held at Tule Lake. Upon release, he proudly served in the U.S. Army and subsequently earned bachelor's and master's degrees from the University of California, Berkeley. Jerry dedicated his career to public service, serving as the first Asian Pacific American prison warden and the first Asian Pacific American to lead the California Department of Corrections. In 1994, Jerry broke racial barriers yet again by becoming the first Asian Pacific American appointed as a United States marshal. Outside of work, Jerry was active in several civil rights organizations, twice serving as the national president of the Japanese American Citizens League, JACL. In 1992, JACL presented Jerry with their highest award, Japanese American of the Biennium, recognizing his years of advocacy and leadership. Jerry and his wife, Dorothy, always spoke out against injustice, and in 1999, they co-founded an annual dinner to promote civil rights and diversity in response to a series of hate crimes in their Sacramento community. Now in its 17th year, their annual Martin Luther King, Jr., Celebration Dinner has become a highlight on the calendar for those who are committed to making Sacramento a more equal, inclusive, and diverse community. Jerry was a true civic leader who lived a life of service and patriotism despite the prejudice he experienced in his own childhood. His immense contributions to the State of California will never be forgotten, and I send my deepest condolences to his wife, Dorothy, and their loved ones.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the life of Sylvia McLaughlin, an ardent environmental activist; a caring and involved community member; a loving wife; and a proud mother and grandmother who passed away on January 19, 2016. Sylvia McLaughlin was born in Denver, CO, on December 24, 1916. Inspired by the surrounding Rocky Mountains, Sylvia was drawn to nature from an early age and participated in many outdoor sports, including skiing and mountain climbing. After receiving a bachelor's degree in French from Vassar College in 1939, she married Donald McLaughlin, and the couple settled in Berkeley, CA, where she became engaged in the growing environmental movement. In response to the city of Berkeley's plan to build on 2,000 acres of the Bay's shoreline, Sylvia co-founded the Save San Francisco Bay Association in 1961, mobilizing thousands of residents in opposition to the Berkeley proposal. Their efforts succeeded, and Save the Bay subsequently championed a 1965 State law designating the San Francisco Bay as a State-protected resource and establishing the Nation's first coastal-zone management agency, the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, BCDC. These efforts prevented further unregulated shoreline development, helped preserve the health of the remarkable bay estuary as vital habitat for local wildlife, increased public access along the shoreline, and helped set the stage for later bay and wetland restoration projects that protect this precious ecosystem. In addition to her pioneering work with Save the Bay, Sylvia remained an environmental activist throughout her life. She served as a board member for organizations, including the National Audubon Society, Citizens for East Shore Parks, Save the Redwoods League, the Trust for Public Lands, Greenbelt Alliance, and East Bay Conservation Corps. For more than half a century, Sylvia worked tirelessly to preserve the natural resources of the Bay Area and all those who enjoy the beautiful shoreline of San Francisco Bay owe her an enormous debt of gratitude. I send my deepest condolences to her children Jeanie Shaterian and George McLaughlin; her stepson, Donald McLaughlin, Jr.; and her many grandchildren.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from Washington for her remarks and for her passion for women's health and also for doing our job--for doing our job. The Senator from Washington is right. The Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee have vowed not to hold a single hearing on a Supreme Court nominee when the President does his job and sends us down his nomination. They refuse to do their job. And I would say that if every American just got up in the morning one day and said: You know what, I don't feel like doing my job, they would be fired. They would be fired. But do our Republican colleagues have time to do other things with their time? Oh yes. What are they doing right now? My colleague pointed this out. They are holding a hearing today on legislation that, if passed, would threaten the health and the lives of women. This is about using women's health as a political football once again. It is about reopening debates we have already settled, including the debate over Roe vs. Wade itself. That case was decided in 1973. Before that, women died from back-alley abortions. Women received no respect for private personal decisions they made with their doctor, they made with their God. Oh no, they have to keep challenging Roe v. Wade. That is what Republicans are doing today in the Judiciary Committee, after they decided, well, they just don't have time enough or will enough to hold a hearing on the President's nominee for the Supreme Court. Now, the decision in Roe was very clear. It said that in the early stages of a pregnancy, a woman has the right to decide whether to continue her pregnancy. Later decisions confirmed that, yes, she still has that right. Roe also affirmed that later in the pregnancy, the health and the life of the mother must always be protected. Let me say that again. The health and the life of the mother must always be protected. That is the law of this land. Now, the major problems with the bills the Judiciary Committee is hearing today is they have no respect for the health and the life of the mother and they have no respect for doctors. The first bill, the 20-week abortion ban, is a direct violation of Roe v. Wade and a grave threat to women. And, by the way, the Senate has already rejected that bill. They are bringing it back again. No matter what Roe says--that you can't threaten the health and life of a woman--they have brought it back. That bill--that 20-week abortion ban--offers no health exception for a woman facing cancer, facing kidney failure, facing blood clots, or other tragic complications during the pregnancy. And it would throw doctors in jail for doing nothing more than helping a woman who is at risk for paralysis or infertility or who has cancer and whose life would be in danger if the pregnancy continued. That bill--that bill they say is going to help women--harms women. It also revictimizes survivors of rape and incest by assuming they are lying--lying--and creating unconscionable barriers to care. The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which represents thousands of physicians nationwide--physicians who help women with their first line of health care in many cases--said: These restrictions are ``dangerous to patients' safety and health.'' So that is the first bill they are hearing today--a bill that has already been rejected, a bill that will hurt women and their families. The Judiciary Committee is also wasting precious time debating a second bill this morning because we already have a law that we voted for called the Born-Alive Infant Protections Act. That bill, which I supported, says that a fetus that is alive at birth has the same protections as every other human being. We voted on it, I say to my friend, in 2002. So what they are doing over in the Judiciary Committee is rehearing a bill we already voted on, and they are rehearing a bill that passed, and then they are rehearing a bill that we voted down. This is politics, pure and simple. Our job is to improve the health and lives of the people, not to undermine it. Our job is to act when there is a vacancy on the Supreme Court. You know, the Republicans always quote Ronald Reagan. Some of us do as well, but he is definitely a Republican hero. Let's see what President Ronald Reagan said when there was an opening in an election year during his Presidency and he nominated Justice Kennedy. What did he say? Ronald Reagan said: ``Every day that passes with a Supreme Court below full strength impairs the people's business in that crucially important body.'' That is not Barbara Boxer. That is not Patty Murray. That is not President Obama. That is not Vice President Biden. That is not Harry Reid. That is not Chuck Schumer. And I could go on. That is Ronald Reagan. So let me say it again. ``Every day that passes with a Supreme Court below full strength impairs the people's business in that crucially important body.'' You know what. We had a Democratic-controlled Senate, and we voted on Justice Kennedy in an election year, and we didn't give speeches and say: Well, let's wait for the American people to decide the next election. You know why we didn't say that? Because that would be laughable. Ronald Reagan got elected twice, just like Barack Obama got elected twice. He deserves respect. He needs to do his job, and we need to do our job. So when you say you are not even going to hold a hearing on the President's nomination, you are showing disrespect for the Constitution--and let's see what the Constitution says--and disrespect to Ronald Reagan, I would argue. Look at what the Constitution says: The President ``shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and Judges of the supreme Court.'' My friends are saying that the Constitution should be obeyed, that they are strict constructionists. Where are these people? They are hiding in the corner not doing their job. Look at what it says: The President ``shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint . . . Judges of the supreme Court.'' It doesn't say: P.S., unless you don't like who is President. It doesn't say that. So I say to everyone on the other side of the aisle who says they are strict constructionists--and most of them do--read the Constitution and read what Ronald Reagan said. The American people have three words for Republicans: Do your job. Stop disrespecting the Constitution. Stop disrespecting our President and stop threatening to create a manmade crisis at the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has to do its job. This isn't some ideological discussion in a salon somewhere, because every day the Court considers cases with profound impacts for the American people--like whether States can have voter identification laws that put an unfair burden on voters or whether the American people have the right to organize and fight for fair pay. I could go on, because almost every issue that American families face eventually winds its way to the Court. So regardless of your political position or your personal position on any individual case, we have to fill the vacancy because Americans deserve a full functioning Supreme Court. In closing, I want to quote Sandra Day O'Connor. Now, here is a woman--the first woman on the Supreme Court, appointed by Ronald Reagan--who made history. She says this to us in the clearest of terms: ``I think we need somebody there now to do the job, and let's get on with it.'' So if you don't want to listen to the Constitution, and you don't want to listen to Ronald Reagan, how about giving some respect to a woman who made history and understands how the Court functions. We have to get on with it. Every one of us has to do our job. The Judiciary Committee should stop holding hearings to hurt women, and they should instead go down to the White House and advise and consent with the President on this nomination. They should stop playing politics. We should all come together. We see such division in the country. It is making a lot of our people afraid because there is no respect. How about we start off with respecting the Constitution and working together to fill this vacancy and showing the public that we can come together to have a fully functioning Supreme Court. The American people deserve nothing else. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. BOXER

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

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise to speak about a very important issue for the American people--what they feed their families. Here is a photo of a dad--a pretty typical photo of a dad taking his two kids shopping. You can see he has one toddler there and he has one infant in the cart. How well I remember doing this with my own kids and then watching my kids with their kids. It is kind of a tradition. So we have a couple of questions we have to ask ourselves when we look at a photo like this. If this dad wants to know what ingredients are in the food that he gives his kids, he should have a right to know that. That is my deep belief. He has a right to know that, just as they do in so many countries all over the world. The bill that is going to come before us, called the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act, is anything but that. I would call it the ``no label'' act. It is a ``no label.'' There is no label required. It is a totally voluntary system. It is a ``no label'' label. Even if in 3 years Senator Roberts' mandatory labeling kicked in, you still would not have a true label. I think it is an embarrassment. I think it is an insult to consumers, and it is a sham. The goal of the bill--and I hope we vote it down--is to hide the information from consumers. It is going to make it harder, not easier, for consumers to know if they are feeding their families genetically modified organisms, or GMOs. So here again is our typical dad, and he has his kids in the cart. They are shopping, they have had their outing, and he picks up a product. He wants to see the ingredients, including whether it has been genetically modified. Guess what. There is no GMO label. So what are his options? Well, in 3 years, maybe he will have an option. But before then, the voluntary program is going to make it literally impossible for him to know what is in his food. It is either going to be a QR code--so he will have to have a smartphone, and even when he puts the smartphone up against the code, they don't really have to tell you easily whether it is GMO, and it is going to have a whole bunch of other information--or he is going to have to call a 1-800 number. Can you believe this? The man is going through the grocery store. He has 50 products in his cart. He is saying: Wait a minute, kids--just a minute. Here, have some chips. Then he calls 1-800 and he tries to find out, and he gets probably some person answering him in India, which is usually what you get, and you go around the mulberry bush. How embarrassing is this? Now, if he is lucky, he gets some products from companies that really are being fair about this, such as Campbell Soup Company. They are doing a really smart, voluntary label. It says: ``Partially produced with genetic engineering. For information visit . . .'' and they have a site. Campbell's, if he is lucky, has enough products in here that have a label. He may find out more information, but it is totally voluntary. It is totally voluntary. I want to say thank you to Campbell's for being upfront and putting the information right on the label. As a mom and as a grandma, I want to know what is in my food. Because of work we have done before, you do have to list how much sugar is in the product, which is so critical as we combat diabetes and other things. Sometimes you read that sugar content, and you think: Oh my God, I am going to get something else. And you can see how many carbs, how much fat. Why can't you find out if the product is genetically modified? Seems to me, this is fair. So while I call the Roberts proposal the ``no-label label,'' because it makes believe you are going to have a label, but there is no label-- the groups, the consumer groups call it the DARK Act, because the label is voluntary. There is not going to be a label, at least for 3 years after that, if not longer. They will figure out another way to put it off indefinitely. Even if, after 3 years USDA decides they have to make something mandatory, information will be hidden behind Web sites or phone numbers or these QR codes that are so problematic. So this busy dad that we have here, he is going to have to stop shopping for every item on his list. He would have to pull out his phone to make a call or go to a Web site or scan a code. You don't have to live too long to know this is not going to happen. This dad is not going to do that because he has two kids. By now they are screaming: Get me out of here; I am hungry, and where is mommy? So as to all of this notion that this dad is now going to deal with all of this--I don't care how much of a super dad you are, you are not going to make 50 phone calls to 1-800 numbers. You are not going to go look at 50 QR codes and find out whether the product has GMO. You are just not going to do it. It is not going to happen. The kids are going to be melting down. Even if he doesn't have kids with him, he has other things to do, by the way, like live his life outside the supermarket. He is going to want to get back home or get back to work. It makes no sense at all. By the way, this dad--and I ask Senator Reid to take a look at this picture, if it doesn't remind him of one of his kids taking his grandkids shopping--is going to be expected--if he has 50 products and he wants to find out--either to have a smartphone and to put it up against the code and then find a whole bunch of information--

Mrs. BOXER. Or he could call the 1-800 number, and we know what happens then. He will be transferred around the world. So Americans should not have to run through hoops. Life is difficult enough already not to have to do that. This thing is a sham. It is an insult. It is a joke. Why are they doing it on the other side of the aisle? Because they are beholden to the special interests that don't want to label GMOs, that are afraid if people know the food is genetically modified, they won't buy it, even though there is no proof of that at all. Mr. President, 64 countries require labels. Some 64 countries today require simple labels, and many of our products are sold in those 64 countries. Let me tell you some of these countries. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a list of the 64 countries that require GMO labeling.

Mrs. BOXER. I am going to name some of these countries that require the labels. So in other words, our companies have to put the label on if they want to sell there, letting people know if their food is genetically modified: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria, China, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, El Salvador, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, India, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Latvia, Mali, Malta, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Slovakia, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sri Lanka, Switzerland, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, and Vietnam. I left some out, but they will be in the Record if anyone wants to see them. Why is it that consumers in Russia have more information than our consumers do--the greatest country in the world? This makes no sense at all. Why is it that our companies are up in arms, since they have to put the label on in these other countries? They could put the label on here. Now, if we care at all about what the public thinks, we should vote no on the Roberts bill. Some 90 percent of Americans want to know if the food they buy has been genetically engineered--90 percent. That is a majority of Republicans. That is a majority of Democrats. That is a majority of Independents. I think the other 10 percent are working for the big food companies, which don't seem to want to share this. Millions of Americans have filed comments with the FDA urging the agency to label genetically engineered food so they can have this information at their fingertips. The bill also preempts any State in the Union from doing a label. Now, I don't like the notion of every State doing a label. That is why I support my bill--which has about 14 sponsors and simply says to the FDA to write a label and make this the law--or the Merkley bill, which comes up with four labels. Senator Merkley will talk about this. We say that would, in fact, be enough so that States wouldn't be able to act. Meanwhile, this says no State action, and we are going to keep the status quo for at least 3 years--no labeling. Even after those 3 years, there may be no labeling at all. It is going to be barcodes, which are confusing, and 1-800 numbers, which probably take you to India to try and figure your way through it all. Now, I have long believed in the power to give consumers information. I think you are all familiar with the dolphin-safe tuna labeling law. I am proud to say that I wrote that law. That law has been in effect since the 1990s, and people like it. But guess what. They see a smiling dolphin on the tuna can, and they know that tuna was caught in a way that does not harm the dolphins. We found out so many years ago that the tuna schools swim under the dolphins, and the tuna companies were purse seining on dolphins. They were putting nets over the dolphins, pulling them away and then catching the tuna, and the dolphins would die by the tens of thousands. So the schoolkids in those years said--at that time I was a House Member: Congresswoman Boxer, we don't want to have tuna that resulted in the death of all these dolphins. So we created the label, and the tuna companies were very helpful, just like Campbell Soup Company has been very helpful in labeling their products. When you have the companies come forward, it is very helpful. So we passed the bill. Everybody said: Oh, this is going to be terrible; no one will buy tuna. Actually, people started buying the tuna because they changed the way they fish for the tuna. The dolphins weren't harmed. We have saved literally hundreds of thousands of dolphins over the period of time that label has been in effect. Now, as to this label, all we are saying is to let us know. Let us know. What we do know is that many of these genetically engineered products, as they are growing in the ground, require huge amounts of pesticides. Senator Heinrich talked about that. That is one issue which has grown in importance to parents because they don't want to give their kids food that is covered in pesticides if they have an option. So the power we give the consumers is critical--the power to simply know the truth. And, to me, knowledge is power. To me, it is respect. You tell people the truth; you don't give them a sham bill and say: Well, we won't require anything for 3 years, but then we may have a barcode, and then we may have a 1-800 number. No. It is pretty simple: Require a label. Require a label. A label is simple. A label works. I see Senator Merkley on the floor, and I am finishing up. We have various ways we can do the label. One way is to give it to the FDA and tell them to come up with it, and another way is the way Senator Merkley has proceeded in a way to attract more support. He has given four options, all of which are very good and all of which would immediately give consumers the information they need. In 2000, when I introduced the first Senate bill concerning the labeling of GE foods, my legislation had one supporter, and it was me. I had no other supporters back then. It was so long ago. It was in 2000. Now 14 Senators are cosponsoring the bill. I am so proud to cosponsor Senator Merkley's bill, the Biotechnology Food Labeling and Uniformity Act, which, again, will put forward four options for companies. There are reasons people want this information, and not one of us here should decry what our people want, even if they want to know if the foods contain GMOs because of the prevalence of herbicide-resistant crops. We know from the USGS that growers sprayed 280 million pounds of Roundup in 2012--a pound of herbicide for every person in the country. That is what they spray on these foods that contain GMOs. Whatever the reason, Americans deserve to know what is in the food they are eating. Some want to know it just to have the information. Some in the food and chemical industry say that adding this very small piece of information would confuse or alarm consumers. This is an old and familiar argument raised by virtually every industry when they want to avoid giving consumers basic facts. In fact, a 2014 study from the Journal of Food Policy shows there is little evidence that mandatory labeling of GE foods signals consumers to avoid the product. There is no proof of that. The FDA requires the labeling of more than 3,000 ingredients, additives, and processes. Orange juice from concentrate must be labeled. Consumers should be able to choose the product they prefer. If they like it from concentrate, fine. If they prefer it in a different fashion, fine. There is no reason they can't also have the knowledge that the food they are buying is genetically engineered. The world certainly has moved ahead of us. The Roberts bill would take us way back into the dark, and that is why consumer groups call it the DARK Act. It is a sham. It is an embarrassment. It is time for us to shelve the DARK Act, to listen to 90 percent of the American people. For God's sake, if we do nothing else, we ought to listen to 90 percent of the American people, and we ought to pass a real bill to help Americans make informed choices about the foods they eat. Again, I wish to thank Senator Merkley for really delving into this issue and coming up with another alternative that will be very acceptable not only to me but to, I believe, the 90 percent of the people who are crying out for this information. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I rise to address the crisis of lead contamination in drinking water that we are seeing all across this Nation. It is time for us to come together and solve these problems. We have all been outraged by the crisis in Flint, where we know children and families are being poisoned by lead in their drinking water. My colleagues from Michigan, Senators Stabenow and Peters, have an excellent bipartisan bill--which Senator Inhofe and I helped to negotiate--that would provide emergency relief to address this crisis. The people of Flint need this relief now. So I call on any of those holding up this bill to get out of the way and let this legislation pass immediately. The crisis in Flint has also brought attention to the broader issue of lead in drinking water in communities throughout our Nation. I want to read to you some headlines from just the last few weeks. Here is one from the Clarion-Ledger in Jackson, MS: ``Pregnant women, kids cautioned over Jackson water, lead.'' That is February 25, 2016. From Newsweek: ``With lead in the water, could Sebring, Ohio, become the next Flint?'' That is January, 27, 2016. From the Associated Press: ``Elevated Lead Levels Found in Newark Schools' Drinking Water.'' In Charlotte, the Charlotte Observer: ``Lead in water not confined to Flint.'' That is January 30, 2016. Whether it is Flint, MI; Newark, NJ; Jackson, MS; or Durham, NC--or shall I name some places that are going to hit us--the American people have a right to expect clean, safe drinking water when they turn on their faucets. It is clear that this is a national crisis that demands a national solution going forward. So that is why today I have introduced new legislation, the Lead in Drinking Water Disaster Act. We are doing this because, should there be more Flints, we want to have a better way to move forward. Currently, the President can declare a major disaster for catastrophes such as hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, tsunamis, storms, droughts, fires, floods, and explosions. Now, sometimes those fires, floods, and explosions are manmade and, yet, we are able to act through FEMA, or the Federal Emergency Management Agency. But lead in drinking water is not on the list of major disasters covered under FEMA's rules. It is critical that future Presidents do not have their hands tied because the definition of a major disaster does not include lead in drinking water. My bill ensures that a lead-contamination crisis would be considered a disaster, which it clearly is. Take a look at the color of the water coming out of the fountains here--the faucets. Nobody could face this in their homes. You would get your kids out of there so fast. Current law doesn't think this is a disaster. So I think this simple way I have of moving forward should be attractive to colleagues. I hope they will sign on to this very simple bill. The way it would work is that the Governor in any State that is hit by this would ask the President for a major disaster declaration. So for all of my colleagues who feel we should process these things through the State, that is exactly what happens in my bill. If the President agrees, FEMA would provide immediate assistance to protect families from lead in the water. What we do in this legislation is we name several agencies who would help create the plan to address the emergency. It would be, in addition to FEMA, Health and Human Services, the EPA, and the Army Corps of Engineers. They would work together to create a plan to resolve the crisis. We can see what is happening to the kids in Flint. Instead of doing their afterschool activities--look how sweet they are--they are carrying bottles of water throughout their community. Look, there is no safe level of lead for children. The effects of exposure are generally irreversible. Lead harms the developing brains and nervous systems of children and babies. It can cause miscarriage, stillbirths, and infertility in both men and women. People with prolonged exposure to lead may be at risk for high blood pressure, heart disease, and kidney disease. What is the extent of this problem? Millions of homes across America receive water from pipes that date back to an era before scientists knew of the harm caused by lead exposure. While we take steps toward investing in modernizing our water infrastructure, which I hope we will do as we write a new Water Resources Development Act--Senator Inhofe and I are very hard at work in doing just that--we also have to step in and help communities that are in crisis right now. I want to conclude with this. Again, take a look at the drinking water coming out of the tap. Would anyone in the Senate stand still for a minute if their children or grandchildren were in a situation where this was the drinking water, this was the bathing water? We know there is no way we would ever allow that to happen. No American should ever have to drink water that puts their health and the health of their children at risk. I hope we take action by passing the emergency legislation by the Michigan Senators this week. The children and families of Flint should not have to wait one more day. After we pass that measure, which addresses itself just to Flint, MI, I hope we will take up my legislation to help future Presidents address this public health threat, which is going to pop up all over this great Nation of ours. We must be prepared. We cannot tie the hands of this President or any future President.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I rise to address the crisis of lead contamination in drinking water that we are seeing all across this Nation. It is time for us to come together and solve these problems. We have all been outraged by the crisis in Flint, where we know children and families are being poisoned by lead in their drinking water. My colleagues from Michigan, Senators Stabenow and Peters, have an excellent bipartisan bill--which Senator Inhofe and I helped to negotiate--that would provide emergency relief to address this crisis. The people of Flint need this relief now. So I call on any of those holding up this bill to get out of the way and let this legislation pass immediately. The crisis in Flint has also brought attention to the broader issue of lead in drinking water in communities throughout our Nation. I want to read to you some headlines from just the last few weeks. Here is one from the Clarion-Ledger in Jackson, MS: ``Pregnant women, kids cautioned over Jackson water, lead.'' That is February 25, 2016. From Newsweek: ``With lead in the water, could Sebring, Ohio, become the next Flint?'' That is January, 27, 2016. From the Associated Press: ``Elevated Lead Levels Found in Newark Schools' Drinking Water.'' In Charlotte, the Charlotte Observer: ``Lead in water not confined to Flint.'' That is January 30, 2016. Whether it is Flint, MI; Newark, NJ; Jackson, MS; or Durham, NC--or shall I name some places that are going to hit us--the American people have a right to expect clean, safe drinking water when they turn on their faucets. It is clear that this is a national crisis that demands a national solution going forward. So that is why today I have introduced new legislation, the Lead in Drinking Water Disaster Act. We are doing this because, should there be more Flints, we want to have a better way to move forward. Currently, the President can declare a major disaster for catastrophes such as hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, tsunamis, storms, droughts, fires, floods, and explosions. Now, sometimes those fires, floods, and explosions are manmade and, yet, we are able to act through FEMA, or the Federal Emergency Management Agency. But lead in drinking water is not on the list of major disasters covered under FEMA's rules. It is critical that future Presidents do not have their hands tied because the definition of a major disaster does not include lead in drinking water. My bill ensures that a lead-contamination crisis would be considered a disaster, which it clearly is. Take a look at the color of the water coming out of the fountains here--the faucets. Nobody could face this in their homes. You would get your kids out of there so fast. Current law doesn't think this is a disaster. So I think this simple way I have of moving forward should be attractive to colleagues. I hope they will sign on to this very simple bill. The way it would work is that the Governor in any State that is hit by this would ask the President for a major disaster declaration. So for all of my colleagues who feel we should process these things through the State, that is exactly what happens in my bill. If the President agrees, FEMA would provide immediate assistance to protect families from lead in the water. What we do in this legislation is we name several agencies who would help create the plan to address the emergency. It would be, in addition to FEMA, Health and Human Services, the EPA, and the Army Corps of Engineers. They would work together to create a plan to resolve the crisis. We can see what is happening to the kids in Flint. Instead of doing their afterschool activities--look how sweet they are--they are carrying bottles of water throughout their community. Look, there is no safe level of lead for children. The effects of exposure are generally irreversible. Lead harms the developing brains and nervous systems of children and babies. It can cause miscarriage, stillbirths, and infertility in both men and women. People with prolonged exposure to lead may be at risk for high blood pressure, heart disease, and kidney disease. What is the extent of this problem? Millions of homes across America receive water from pipes that date back to an era before scientists knew of the harm caused by lead exposure. While we take steps toward investing in modernizing our water infrastructure, which I hope we will do as we write a new Water Resources Development Act--Senator Inhofe and I are very hard at work in doing just that--we also have to step in and help communities that are in crisis right now. I want to conclude with this. Again, take a look at the drinking water coming out of the tap. Would anyone in the Senate stand still for a minute if their children or grandchildren were in a situation where this was the drinking water, this was the bathing water? We know there is no way we would ever allow that to happen. No American should ever have to drink water that puts their health and the health of their children at risk. I hope we take action by passing the emergency legislation by the Michigan Senators this week. The children and families of Flint should not have to wait one more day. After we pass that measure, which addresses itself just to Flint, MI, I hope we will take up my legislation to help future Presidents address this public health threat, which is going to pop up all over this great Nation of ours. We must be prepared. We cannot tie the hands of this President or any future President.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, my colleague has brought to our attention a very crucial issue. We need to be there for each other. That is what makes America great--when we are there for each other. (The remarks of Mrs. Boxer pertaining to the introduction of S. 2674 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mrs. BOXER. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, the United States is in the midst of a full-blown drug crisis. More people died from drug overdoses in 2014 than any previous year on record, claiming more lives than car accidents across the country. Since 2000, there has been a 200 percent increase in the rate of overdose deaths involving opioid pain relievers and heroin, with 61 percent of all drug overdose deaths in 2014 involving some type of opioid. These tragedies are proof of the fierce bonds of addiction, and it seems no State has been spared from the opioid epidemic. In my State of California, deaths involving prescription pain medications have increased by 16.5 percent since 2006. In fact, there were more than 1,800 opioid-related deaths in 2012 alone, and 72 percent of those involved prescription pain medications. We cannot ignore the opioid crisis anymore. This is not a problem for only the local communities or State officials. This is a nationwide crisis and addressing it requires a multi-pronged response at all levels of government. Last year, California was one of only 16 States selected to receive funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC to help improve safe prescribing of opioid painkillers, an important step forward in tackling the root cause of this debilitating drug crisis. The pain and sorrow of drug addiction knows no limits. This is a tragedy that impacts families from all backgrounds, including our servicemembers and veterans. There is substantial evidence that prescription drug use and abuse is a major contributing factor to military and veteran suicides. This has been a concern of mine for several years, and I was proud to work with my colleagues in 2013 to ensure that military and veterans hospitals were included in the Drug Enforcement Administration's prescription drug takeback efforts so that our military personnel, veterans, and their families could voluntarily dispose of unwanted or unused prescription drugs. However, much more must be done to combat this epidemic. To address this emergency fully and effectively, we need to provide immediate funding to the key grant programs included in the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, CARA. I applaud Senator Shaheen and Senator Whitehouse for introducing an amendment to give the Department of Justice, DOJ, and the Department of Health and Human Services, HHS, the tools they need to fund the essential prevention, treatment, and law enforcement programs to help the families and communities torn apart by drug abuse. American lives are on the line, and we cannot wait to act. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, this is a great country. Regardless of what some people say, this is a great country, and the reason it is great is that people work. They get up and they produce for this country. They give their talents. They get paid. They help their families. Their kids get educated. We have that ethic of doing our job. That is why it is so shocking to me that the Republicans who are in charge of this Senate refuse to do their job. They said that no matter who the President nominates, they are not even going to hold a hearing on that person. They say they want a Presidential election. Well, they had two, and their guys lost. I know it is not a happy experience. Believe me, I have lived through it. I have served with Republican Presidents and Democratic Presidents. But the world doesn't stop because you are not happy with who is President. The Constitution tells us what we have to do. Here is what article II, section 2, clause 2 says. And I know everyone here swears to uphold this Constitution. I would argue that when my Republican friends state that they are not going to do their job, they are not going to hold even a hearing on whomever the President nominates for the Supreme Court, which is now short one member, they are defying the Constitution. Maybe they will be sued by someone--an aggrieved party. The people of this country are aggrieved by this attitude. Let's read article II, section 2, clause 2, for anyone who cares about the Constitution, and everybody says they do. It says the President ``shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, [and] Judges of the supreme Court.'' It doesn't say the President does it alone; it doesn't say the Senate does it alone; it says they do it together. That is article II, section 2, clause 2. This Senator advises her colleagues to read it, and if you don't follow it, you are not doing your job. We want them to do their job. Now, who else says that it is important? I will tell you--some very incredibly respected people. This quote is from Ronald Reagan, one of the heroes of the Republican Party. I served when he was President, and he said: ``Every day that passes with a Supreme Court below full strength impairs the people's business in that crucially important body.'' That is Ronald Reagan. Let's look at Sandra Day O'Connor, the first woman appointed to the Supreme Court, a Republican who is very beloved. What a wonderful woman. She made history because Ronald Reagan appointed her and we confirmed her. She said, ``I think we need somebody there''--meaning in the Court--``to do the job now, and let's get on with it.'' This is Sandra Day O'Connor. So, my Republican friends, you have two extraordinary Republicans whom you love telling you to do your job. It doesn't say in article II, section 2, clause 2: But you don't have to do your job if you don't like the President. It doesn't say that. It just lays it out pretty straightforwardly. This is article II, section 2, clause 2. It doesn't say: Don't do this if you don't like the President. It doesn't say: Don't do this in an election year. As a matter of fact, we voted in an election year. Anthony Kennedy was nominated by Ronald Reagan with a Democratic Congress. And we voted in an election year. Do you think we wouldn't have been happier to wait and see if we were able to get that Presidency back as Democrats? No, we did what Ronald Reagan asked us to do. We acted responsibly, and we found Anthony Kennedy to be very qualified. He sits on the Court to this day, having been voted on in an election year. It has happened 14 times in our history. The only time we had a problem was back in the Civil War, when our country was obviously under tremendous stress. Today, we are one Nation under God, and we should pull together on this. There are some other things I wanted to read to you. This is what Michael Gerhardt, professor of law at the University of North Carolina, said about the Republican plan not to move on this vacancy: Refusing to hold a hearing on a Supreme Court nomination or refusing to take any action on a nomination before it has been made is simply unprecedented in our history. The refusal is not grounded in the Constitution. It is a willful abdication of authority. The Constitution does not seek to have effect at certain times of the year or the session. One never knows when something horrible is going to happen. When this happened to Justice Scalia, this was a shock to his family, to the country. Regardless of whether you agreed with him or not, it was a shock. Nothing in the Constitution says if you are shocked about something that happens, you don't have to work with the President. It doesn't say that. Don't make it up, especially because this is the party that keeps saying they want a strict construction of it. If you want to construe the Constitution in a strict way, you need to act. There is Jamal Greene, professor of law at Columbia. He says: ``The Senate has a constitutional duty to give due consideration to anyone nominated by the President to fill a Supreme Court vacancy.'' He goes on: ``In the modern history of the Nation, there is no precedent for the Senate deliberately refusing to vote on a nominee to a vacant Supreme Court seat, whether during an election year or at any other time.'' We have our differences here; we really do. People say: Senator, is that why you are not running again, because it is so hard to do things? No. I love it here. This is just my time to move on and do other things and have somebody else come in. I love it here. I love my colleagues. I have friends on both sides of the aisle and I get things done and so do they. You would think that we would agree on the meaning of the Constitution--it is simple--and that we wouldn't be arguing about it. I am a little stunned at this failure to step up and do their job. I will tell you this. If you are an average American and you have a job and you call your boss and say: ``Hi, Boss. It is Monday morning, and I just don't feel like coming to work.'' "Are you sick?'' "No.'' "Do you have a problem with your family?'' "No.'' "Well, what should we do?'' "Well, I am not in the mood. I want to wait.'' You would be fired. You would be fired. I am going to be here for the remainder of this year. I want to do my job. I want to do my due diligence. I want to have a chance to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle here on this issue. Today at the White House, Senator McConnell and Senator Grassley reportedly told President Obama that they don't want to do their job. They don't want to do it. They don't care who he sends up. It is unreal. It is unbelievable. They want an election. We had an election. President Obama didn't get elected for 3 years; he got elected for 4 years. The next President, whatever party, is going to be there for 4 years until the next election. This person has to do their job for 4 years, and we have to do our job. They don't want to hold a vote, they don't want to hold a hearing, and many of them say they will not even meet with the nominee. It is our job to be involved in this election. This election of the next Justice is such an important job. The Supreme Court has a job to do. This incredible attitude by my Republican colleagues means that the Supreme Court cannot really function the way it is meant to function. It is going to be divided 4 to 4. That is unfair to the people of this country. Whatever side they are on, this decision needs to be made. As Ronald Reagan said: ``Every day that passes with the Supreme Court below full strength impairs the people's business in that crucially important body.'' Here is one of the heroes of the Republicans saying that every day that passes with the Supreme Court below full strength, the people's business is, in fact, impaired. Here is what that states. This isn't an argument that is happening in a vacuum in some fancy boardroom of some law firm, conservative or liberal. It is a serious argument that impacts the people. Every year the Court considers cases with profound consequences for our constituents. Again, it doesn't matter what your position is. We need a fully functioning Court. I want to give an example, and I see my friend from the State of Washington. The Supreme Court is going to hear oral arguments in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, the most important women's health case in a generation. The case is about the unprecedented attacks we are seeing on women's health in Texas--which is what this case is about-- but also across the Nation. This case is about extreme politicians and extreme groups trying to overturn 43 years of settled law. The settled law is very simple. Women have a right to have reproductive health care. It is as simple as that. When a series of clinics throughout the State are shut down and women have to travel hours and hours and hours and maybe even days to get health care, they effectively don't have it. That is what has been happening in Texas. That is why this case is so important. There is a Texas law, HB2, that was designed to close health clinics that provide a full range of reproductive health care services, including annual exams, pap smears, STD tests, birth control, and, yes, safe and legal abortions--the full panoply of services for a woman. This law in Texas singles out women's health providers with burdensome requirements that have already forced more than half of the clinics in Texas to close. I don't know who gets happy about that, but I don't get happy about that, and nobody who cares about a woman should get happy about that. It is a total outrage. Women are taking matters into their own hands because they have no access to doctors. The goal of this law--and it is working--is to shut down these clinics and deny to women these rights that they have earned. It would reduce the number of providers in practice from 40 to 10. If you are just unfortunate enough to live in an area where your clinic is shut down, Lord knows what you do. You may be a single mother, you may be part of a couple where you both work, you may have children, and you may not be able to take days to find health care. The law is forcing women to travel for hours and some even to other States. Women who live in remote or rural areas may have to stay overnight or for multiple days to avoid making more than one trip. Think about the cost to families who may not be able to do it, who are just getting by. Many women simply can't afford to take off work, drive for hundreds of miles, or get on a plane every time they need health care. They want to do their jobs. They want to be responsible. They step up to the plate every single day, but we can't do it here because politics is playing a part. People have decided they didn't like the fact that Barack Obama got elected twice. Well, too bad--he did, and it is your job to act. I am sorry you don't like the President. Maybe you don't like the fact that he got us out of the worst recession since the Great Depression. Maybe you don't like the fact that he cut the deficit by two-thirds. Maybe you don't like the fact that he got us out of two wars. That is your choice, fine, but he has a right to nominate, and we have a responsibility to meet that nominee and to vote up or down on him or her. These cases that are pending before the Court--and I am just highlighting this one, and I know Senator Murray will go into depth on it--these cases are critical. We need the full bench. I don't care how you feel about the issue. Maybe you support closing down clinics and going from 40 to 10, letting women suffer, taking matters into their own hands. If that is your position, I am sorry, it is not fair, but you have a right to your position--but the Court has a right to be at full strength. I close with just a quote from a woman who has been hurt already by this Texas law which is going to be heard tomorrow in the Court. Marni. Marni had to fly from Austin, TX, to Seattle when her appointment was cancelled the night before it was scheduled because the clinic was forced to immediately discontinue providing these services after the Texas law took effect. Marni said her first reaction was ``to feel like my rights were being taken away from me, to feel very disappointed that elected officials had the ability to make decisions about my and my fiance's life.'' That is Marni. The stakes could not be higher. This is just one of the cases. Finally, the highest Court in our land should be fully functioning. The American people deserve nothing less. I am going to put up the Sandra Day O'Connor quote for the last time in this talk. She is a Republican woman, first woman to serve, and appointed by Ronald Reagan. She is looking at this Court. She knows what it is like to serve on the Court. She knows how hard the issues are. She understands how important it is. She is more important to this debate than anyone in the Senate, including yours truly. She knows. She didn't say: Wait until the next election to see if my party wins, no. She didn't say that. She said: ``I think we need somebody there now to do the job, and let's get on with it.'' I thank the Senator from Washington for her leadership on this issue.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I want to express my deepest sympathies to the Scalia family. Justice Scalia was first and foremost a family man, beloved by his wife, 9 children, and 36 grandchildren. Since 1986 he had served on the highest court in our land. He inspired deep loyalty among his many friends and his current and former clerks, who remember him for his sharp wit and intellect. He was clearly a man who rose above ideological differences with his colleagues to forge deep friendships on the Court. That is a credit to him. While I may have disagreed with him on matters of law and policy, we are united as Americans in sharing our condolences.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I came to the floor because I am stunned. I just learned that the Republicans have announced to the country they will not even call a hearing, if and when President Obama does his job and nominates a replacement for Justice Scalia. We send our heartfelt sympathy to his family. I don't know where the Republicans have come up with this notion that this is the right thing to do. If you look at the strict constitutionalists, you know they are reading the Constitution, unless they are phonies. This is what the Constitution says, the President shall ``nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court.'' Where in this does it say: except in election years. As a matter of fact, we have acted 14 times in election years. Whoever is a strict constructionist should read the Constitution, article II, section 2, clause 2. I am going to read it again: The President shall ``nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court.'' It doesn't say as Senator Cornyn said: Oh, the President can nominate, but nobody else has a job to do. Oh no. It says: ``. . . and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate . . .'' To have such a press conference, as I understand it--I didn't see it myself, but it has been reported to me--there has been an announcement that the Republicans will not even hold a hearing, which goes against this Constitution. I wouldn't be surprised if there is a lawsuit brought by the people of this country, 70 percent of whom believe we have an obligation. We have an obligation. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say it is too late for the President to nominate. Guess what. The Republicans keep saying we need an elected President. Well, I have good news for them. This President was elected twice and he has about a year left. Guess what. I am not going to run again, but I am here now. I want to work. I did not take this job to have a year off and not worry about working in my last year. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say: Oh, and by the way, don't advise and consent if it is a Democratic President in his second term. It does not say that. So if you consider yourself a strict constructionist, then pay attention to this. I am proud that several Republicans on the other side said: Baloney, we don't go along with it. Good for them and more should do it. It doesn't say in the Constitution, you only advise and consent if it is a Republican President with a Republican Senate. Again, the Senate over the years has repeatedly considered Supreme Court nominees in both election years and in the final year of a President's term. Justice Kennedy, who serves now, a fellow Californian, was nominated by President Reagan in 1987. I was over on the House side, and I didn't have anything to do with it, but I sure watched it. Kennedy was confirmed by a Democratic Senate during Reagan's last year in office. My Republican friends say: Oh, but this Senator said this about it and that Senator said that and Joe Biden said this. It doesn't matter what people say. It is what we do, and 14 times in history we have voted on judges in an election year. My Republican colleagues who suggest that this process cannot be done before President Obama leaves office are fooling themselves. History has disproven them and the Constitution is going to chastise whoever says: I want a dead Constitution. Read this. This is very clear. It absolutely is. So I have a message for my Republican friends. Pretty simple. Pretty simple. Do your job. Do your job. If you are afraid to do your job, then do something else with your life. If you don't want to do your job because you are worried that one moderate may get through, then make your argument. If you want to vote no, vote no, but to hold a press conference and say you will not even hold a hearing is outrageous. Every day in talented cities across this country, Americans show up for work and they do their jobs. They don't call their bosses and say: You know, I just don't feel like doing this today. I am healthy, I am fine, I am well, but you know what, I don't want to do my job. They would be fired and they should be. Do your job. You are elected to do your job. The American people show up for their jobs. They do their jobs. It is as simple as that. The Justices of the Supreme Court show up and they do their jobs every day. Justice Scalia did it. They all do it. They hear cases. They write opinions. The Supreme Court is the last stop on the justice train, but to be able to function as our Founding Fathers in the U.S. Constitution intended, they need a full bench with all nine Justices. A Supreme Court with eight Justices is not a functioning Court. Let us look at the Republicans' hero, Ronald Reagan. We always hear them say: Ronald Reagan. I was proud to serve in the House during Ronald Reagan's term. I didn't agree with him on a lot of things, but I agree with him on this. Do you know what he said? I look forward to prompt hearings conducted in the spirit of cooperation and bipartisanship. I will do everything in my power as President to assist in that process. President Ronald Reagan, November 12, 1987. What did he say? Did he get up and say: Oh, it is an election year--which it was. No. Kennedy was voted on in an election year and President Reagan made the case. This is what else Ronald Reagan said: ``Every day that passes with a Supreme Court below full strength impairs the people's business in that crucially important body.'' Let me say that again. Ronald Reagan, who was pushing for a vote on a Supreme Court Justice in an election year, said the following: ``Every day that passes with a Supreme Court below full strength impairs the people's business in that crucially important body.'' I don't understand where the Republicans are coming from. They are disregarding Ronald Reagan, their hero. They are disregarding the Constitution that they say is their shining star of their being, which it should be for all of us, and they stood there today and blatantly announced they are not even going to hold a hearing on a nominee before they even know who he or she is. What is that about? I am truly stunned. I thought I had seen everything, but I have never seen this. You show up and you do your job. I am going to show you a few other quotes of people who are very important to this conversation and what they are saying about not moving forward. How about Sandra Day O'Connor, what an incredible woman. She was appointed by Ronald Reagan, the first female ever appointed to the Supreme Court, a magnificent person and a Republican. What did she say? ``I think we need somebody there, now, to do the job, and let's get on with it.'' She just said that 10 days ago or less. Is she a partisan? I don't think so. She is speaking from the heart. She is speaking from her soul. She is speaking from experience. She knows the Court has important cases before it and will be tied in knots if we don't have a Court at full strength. Again, here is what she said, Republican Sandra Day O'Connor, esteemed member of the Supreme Court, a Ronald Reagan nominee: ``I think we need somebody there, now, to do the job, and let's get on with it.'' I am going to show you two more quotes. This is from the American Constitution Society: A vacancy on the Court for a year and a half, which is what the Republicans want, at least a year and a half, would mean many instances where the Court could not resolve a split among the circuits. There would be the very undesirable result that the same federal law would have differing meanings in various parts of the country. That is the American Constitution Society. Then we have another quote I wish to share with you by the director of the Byron White Center at the University of Colorado: It would essentially shut the Supreme Court down for two years. It would be a monumental crisis for the development of the law and the need to resolve large legal questions. Let me say it again. It would essentially shut the Supreme Court down for two years. It would be a monumental crisis for the development of the law and the need to resolve large legal questions. It is not as if large legal questions aren't at stake. Right now the Supreme Court is set to look at some incredibly important cases that have real effects on our people. This isn't some argument in a salon. This is real stuff. The cases can't wait, and it doesn't matter what side you are on with these cases. They have to be resolved. What about voting rights? I don't think there would be a difference of opinion in this Chamber that this is what makes this country great and special, the right to vote, the responsibility to vote. We have many States that have put forward voter ID laws. They need to be told whether they are fair or unfair, whatever side you come down on. We need a Court to look at voting rights cases and see who the eligible voters are. Affirmative action. They are going to reexamine that case. Whatever side you are on, it has to be decided. Workers' rights. The Court will decide the impact of the ability of the union to represent millions of working Americans. Whatever side you are on, there needs to be a decision, otherwise you are going to have different States with different laws and it makes no sense. This is one Nation under God. That is why we have a U.S. Senate and a U.S. House and a U.S. President and a U.S. Supreme Court--because we are one Nation and these issues have to be decided. There is one on employee discrimination. How do people get their day in court if they are being discriminated against? It doesn't matter what side you are on. The fact is there needs to be a decision. Women's health. There is a big case on women's health as to whether workers can get birth control. Again, whatever side you are on, pro, con, there needs to be a decision. It is about women, health care, voting rights, students. These cases have real consequences. I am going to conclude with one more chart that deals with the length of Supreme Court Justices for the past 35 years. Here you see the list of the various nominees. Not all of these made it, a couple did not, but here is the deal with these. O'Connor waited 95 days, Rehnquist 92, Scalia 82, Bork 109, Kennedy 113, Souter 74, Thomas 110, Ginsburg 137, Breyer 114, Roberts 90, Alito 95, Sotomayor 97, Kagan 118. Under Mitch McConnell's plan, the Republican plan that they laid out, if you averaged all of this, you get 102 days. That is the average it takes. Under McConnell's plan, it would take 444 days, at best. That is assuming everything goes perfectly well. It could take a lot longer. What does this mean? Anyone within the sound of my voice has heard this: Justice delayed is justice denied. That is a fact. And it is used throughout the country when we talk about the importance of making these decisions. When our constituents go to jury duty, what are they asked? Can you make this decision? Can you come to this decision? Because everyone deserves to have an answer. So, in conclusion, take a look at this. This is an abomination. This is the number of days we have seen over the last 35 years that it took to confirm. Fourteen of our Justices have been confirmed in election years since the beginning of this country, and this takes us back to the Civil War days--imagine--when we really had a country divided. This is not what we need to do right now, with all of these decisions coming up. Regardless of your stand on them, people deserve justice. I will conclude with the ``Do Your Job'' chart because I have to say that is what it comes down to. I urge the people of this great country to call the Republicans, every one of them, with three words: Do your job. And if the person who answers says ``I don't know what you mean,'' say ``Do your job. Let the process move forward on the Supreme Court Justice.'' And if they say ``Well, we want an elected President,'' what will be told to them is ``We are fortunate. We have one, elected not once but twice.'' More than enough time remains for him to do his job, and more than enough time remains for us to do ours. Republicans, do your job. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I wish to recognize and congratulate Mr. David B. Norris, national vice chairman for legislation of Veterans of Foreign Wars, on his retirement after more than three decades of service to California veterans. A resident of Tracy, CA, Mr. Norris enlisted in the Army in January 1966 and served his country honorably, deploying to Vietnam with the 7th Psychological Operations Group. In recognition of his contributions, he received the Vietnam Service Medal, Presidential Unit Citation with oak leaf cluster, and Good Conduct Medal with oak leaf cluster. Following his service to the country, Mr. Norris received his associates of arts degree in business from Northwest Missouri State University in 1974 and went on to become a paralegal for Century Law Offices in Costa Mesa and San Ramon, CA, and serve on the city of Tracy planning commission. Mr. Norris joined the VFW in 1968 at Post 9723 in Okinawa, Japan, and, as a life member, has served on several California and national committees, including as the national chaplain, national chief of staff, and national judge advocate general. He is also a member of the Vietnam Veterans of America and a life member of the American Legion. Mr. Norris has been a tireless advocate for veterans and a leading voice on efforts to assist female and homeless veterans. I would like to thank Mr. Norris for everything he has done to advance the needs of California veterans and wish him and wife, Sandy, all the best as he retires from legislative service with the VFW.