Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, just to sum it all up, it is offensive to hear someone describe what is the law of the land as a criminal act. It is offensive, to describe it as a crime. But more than that, if that is what you believe--and I respect your right to believe it--then come up here and do what you are doing. Overturn Roe v. Wade. Tell the women of America they have no right to choose anymore. If that is what you want to do, go ahead and do it. If you want to make it a crime, make it a crime. That is honest. What is dishonest is to attack an organization that is acting within the law, which is helping 3 million people, and I would say that is what this debate is about. I just hope the Murray amendment passes today. It will send a strong signal. And if it doesn't pass, we know this bill is going to be vetoed, because this President understands that this government is not the be all and end all. We are not the moral voice of the universe. We are not. People don't even like us as an institution. Let them make up their own minds in their own homes, with their own God, with their own family. I support them, whatever their decision is. Whether they are pro-choice, whether they are anti-choice, I will fight for their right to decide for themselves, but I will not force my view on somebody else. That is what being pro-choice means, that you are willing to understand that there are different positions. I don't have every answer, and the Senator from Oklahoma doesn't have every answer. It is called humility. I don't have the answer. I will trust my constituents to make that decision. I hope that we will stop this attack on Planned Parenthood. If this is really about a woman's right to choose, let's have that debate. If you want to call it a crime, which I have heard on this floor, then put your bill out there. Tell people they are committing a crime. Put them in jail. Do that. We will have the debate, and we will win that debate, but don't go after organizations that are acting completely within the law. With that, I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I want to say that it has been interesting to hear the debate. It has touched on a lot of things that are close to my heart and that I know are close to a lot of other people's hearts, which is getting health care to more people--health care that is affordable, health care that wasn't available before--and also, frankly, making sure we don't have attacks continue on an organization called Planned Parenthood that delivers lifesaving health care to 3 million Americans each and every year. There are a couple of points I would like to make. In a very strong debate I had with the Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Lankford, I stated that I was offended because I believed that--Mr. President, I will go through you. The Senator basically said that those of us who are pro- choice are essentially supporting a crime against children, and he took issue with that and said he didn't. Well, I want to place in the Record his exact words, if I might.

Mrs. BOXER. This is from the transcript. After talking about abortion, he says: Why would we continue to supplement the death of children? ``Why would we continue to supplement the death of children?'' As I read the English language, that would be an accessory to a crime. So I stand by my words. And I would say again, if the issue is whether abortion should be legal, that is a fair issue. And I think if people feel it is a crime, then they ought to come down here with their legislation to put women in jail. I think that debate would be important. But they shouldn't attack an organization that is legal-- Planned Parenthood--that is living within the law, and 97 percent of what they do has nothing to do with choice, and the other 3 percent is totally legal. The GOP has tried to repeal ObamaCare dozens of times. This is another time. I do agree we have to fix certain aspects of the Affordable Care Act, ObamaCare. Absolutely. In my State, it is a raging success. In California, I want you to know we have 40 million people, so this is a very big test case. We are like the fifth or sixth largest country when it comes to the economy. We have seen the uninsured rates in California drop from 17.2 percent in 2013 to 12.4 percent today--in 2014. We have seen more than 4 million previously uninsured Californians get some sort of health care coverage. And I can say that, yes, we have to make sure the competition works. What we have in place is not a single-payer law. We have in place an exchange where private companies come in. The competition is important, and if it isn't robust, there are going to be these increases. So I think it is very important. For the people who can't afford to get insurance off Covered California, which is our exchange, we have seen 3.5 million more Californians enroll in Medi-Cal thanks to the Medicaid expansion. Also, in this country, 30 million women with health insurance are able to access contraception without any cost-sharing. That is very, very important because I would hope we would agree that unintended pregnancies are not what we want regardless of whether we are pro- choice or anti-choice. That is important for planning pregnancies. In 2013 women across this country saved more than $483 million in out-of- pocket costs for birth control. I know there is concern about ObamaCare that continues and rages on. I think the question is, Do we want to make it work better--of course there are things we can do to make it work better--or do we want to go back to the days when if you had high blood pressure or diabetes, you couldn't get a policy? I remember so clearly constituents grabbing me by the arm and saying: My son was born with a disability. I can't get coverage. What am I going to do? People went broke. People lost their homes and they lost their savings before the Affordable Care Act. As I say, nothing is perfect, nobody is perfect--not each of us, that is for sure--and the Affordable Care Act is not perfect. We need to fix it, but what we have heard over and over again from the other side is not a legitimate point; it is just an attack, a screaming attack against ObamaCare--the Affordable Care Act--and there is nothing in its stead. We have said to the other side: Let us know. Well, the reason there is nothing in its stead is the underlying form of ObamaCare--the Affordable Care Act--is a Republican idea, and it is that everybody needs to get health care, and it was based on Mitt Romney's plan that he put into effect in Massachusetts. So I could go on and on about the amazing results of the Affordable Care Act. I mean, I have had people come up and say: Oh my God, my child can stay on my policy until age 26. That is amazing. I have cancer, and I used to have a limit on what my insurance would pay. Now those limits are off because of ObamaCare. So whether it is preexisting conditions, or kicking a child off, or getting sick and then finding out, guess what, that is it for you, I don't want to go back to those bad old days. I am willing to sit down with anyone of good will and fix the parts of ObamaCare that aren't working. That is fine. But, again, what we see constantly is this trying to completely torpedo--and in this case by taking away the funds. In the case of Planned Parenthood, it is just: We do not like the underlying women's health reproductive laws, so we are going after the face of women's health--Planned Parenthood. That is an attack on women. What we are seeing from the other side is an attack on women, an attack on reproductive health care, an attack on the Affordable Care Act--ObamaCare--which, although not perfect, is saving families, saving lives. This is important. I hope we will support the Murray amendment today. If that passes, then Planned Parenthood will still be funded. If it fails, the President is going to veto this bill, and we will have enough votes to sustain that. But this is an exercise that is unfortunate because it is an attack on an organization that is doing everything under the law, everything that is legal. They had the president of Planned Parenthood sit for hour after hour after hour after hour after hour, haranguing her--haranguing her--a woman who really, in many ways, is working to save lives because when you discover breast cancer early--I think the Chair would agree with me--it is so treatable and so curable. If you find STDs, you can treat them. If you find cervical cancer in an early stage, you can save a life. That is what they are doing. As my friend Senator Wyden said--he is the ranking member of the Committee on Finance and a champion for women's health and health in general--the fact is, 97 percent of what Planned Parenthood does are these screenings, these important screenings. This is basic health care--making sure someone's blood pressure is OK. There are so many people who go there for their first line of health care. The fact that they are in women's reproductive health care--3 percent of their work entails that. It is legal. It is legal. It has been legal since 1973. I say to my friends on both sides who don't like it, if you don't like it, come down here and try to change the law. Make it a crime. Do what you want. We will fight you. We will beat you. But that would be honest. What isn't honest is attacking an organization that has been in place for almost 100 years and the rhetoric associated with it. We have seen across this country--I am not talking about Colorado because the facts aren't in--an increase in threats to doctors, nurses, patients, and clinics. We have seen real problems. So what we say matters. What we do matters. I want to thank my friend, who has worked so hard on this. I am so strongly supporting the Murray-Wyden amendment. I think it is absolutely critical. What I love about it is you expand access to health care, but you pay for it. That is really important. So let's come together over party lines. Let's support that amendment, and let's defeat this attack on the Affordable Care Act, which, yes, we can make better. But to toss it out or to make it unworkable with cuts that we see in these reconciliation bills would be a blow to tens of millions of Americans. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Alice Waters, groundbreaking chef, restaurant owner, author, and activist who was recently awarded the National Humanities Medal by President Obama for her pioneering role in the sustainable food movement. As a student at the University of California, Berkeley, in the 1960s, Alice developed a passion for social activism. While studying abroad in Paris one semester, she began to realize the impact food can have on our daily lives. Exposed to lively discussions over fresh, locally sourced home-cooked meals, a simple yet revolutionary idea took root, and in 1971 she and a group of friends opened Chez Panisse in Berkeley. It was a concept that took off almost immediately: fresh, local, and organic food that changed with the seasons. As the restaurant's success grew, Alice and her staff created a network of local farmers and producers whose dedication to sustainable agriculture supplied Chez Panisse's fresh ingredients, helped to pioneer farm-to-table-cuisine, and served as a model for future generations of restaurant owners. Alice's influence spread far beyond the kitchen. In 1996, she created the Edible Schoolyard Project to help schools develop community gardens, so students can better understand the origins of their food and how to create fresh, local, and healthy meals. Today there are more than 5,000 Edible Schoolyard Project locations worldwide, and the effort helped inspire First Lady Michelle Obama to plant a vegetable garden on the South Lawn of the White House. Alice has said that ``good food is a right, not a privilege,'' and her work is helping to make that a reality. She has revolutionized the way our country cooks, eats, and thinks about food--and we are all better because of it. I am proud to congratulate my friend, Alice Waters, on this incredible honor and wish her many more years of continued success.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the 100th anniversary of the American Medical Women's Association, AMWA, the first national organization of women physicians. One hundred years ago, less than 6 percent of all physicians in the United States were women. Recognizing a crucial need to provide support for these pioneering women and to bring diversity to the medical field, Dr. Bertha Van Hoosen founded the AMWA on November 18, 1915, in Chicago. The AMWA quickly established a network and support system for women in the medical profession and documented their lack of opportunities in postgraduate training, internships, and academic appointments. Over the years, the AMWA successfully advocated to increase leadership roles for women doctors, sponsored research and panel discussions on medical women in the workforce, and established scholarship and mentorship programs to encourage the next generation of women leaders. The AMWA has also worked to improve women's health by addressing issues from human trafficking and affordable contraceptive care, to childhood obesity and osteoporosis risk across the globe. For the past century, the American Medical Women's Association has served as the vision and voice of women in medicine. As we celebrate their extraordinary milestone, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating the AMWA for their tireless efforts to open the door for generations of women physicians. Because of their work, countless men, women, and children have benefited from the dedicated service of AMWA members, and for that we are all grateful.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, it is with a heavy heart that I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the life of Nohemi Gonzalez, a 23- year-old senior at California State University, Long Beach who was tragically killed during the recent terrorist attacks in Paris. Nohemi grew up in Whittier, CA with her mother, Beatriz, who described her as ``very strong and independent,'' even graduating high school early because she couldn't wait to go to college. At Cal State, she chose to study industrial design--recently taking home a second place prize in an international design competition. She was thrilled to be achieving one of her dreams of studying at the Strate School of Design in Paris this semester. Nohemi's professors laud her as a very gifted student--curious, determined, and incredibly caring. She took on a leadership role as a teacher's aide and shop technician for the department of design. Classmates remember Nohemi as a mentor and tutor, someone who encouraged everyone around her to strive to be the best versions of themselves. Friends say she was a blessing and always had an upbeat, cheerful attitude. She always looked on the bright side. I want to send my deepest, heartfelt condolences to Nohemi's mother, Beatriz, her stepfather, Jose Hernandez, and to all who loved her. While there are no words to express how sorry I am at this tragic loss, I hope they can take comfort knowing that Nohemi's beautiful legacy will serve as an inspiration for us all. I also want to send my thoughts and prayers to the members of the Palm Desert-based band, Eagles of Death Metal, who were playing at the Bataclan concert hall the night of the attacks. As they grieve the death of their British merchandise manager, Nick Alexander, and representatives from their record company, Thomas Ayad, Marie Mosser, and Manu Perez, I know there has been an outpouring of love and strength from the caring Desert community. I hope that brings them some comfort in this very difficult time. The people of France have suffered tremendously, and I want them to know that Americans mourn with them. They stood by our sides after the attacks on September 11, 2001, and we stand with them now in the face of these horrific attacks.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating the University of California, Santa Cruz on its 50th anniversary and recognizing the outstanding faculty and staff for their immense contributions. For 50 years, UC Santa Cruz has educated, inspired, and helped shape the futures of generations of young people, fostering an environment to produce not only good scholars but also good citizens. Modeled after historic institutions like Oxford, from its earliest days, students have been encouraged to ask questions--to learn how to think for themselves and debate the status quo inside and outside the classroom. Today the university counts among its alumni some of the world's most prolific and influential leaders on everything from organic farming to ocean health, from women's rights and medical research. A half century after its founding, UC Santa Cruz is a world-renowned research facility at the center of many critical scientific breakthroughs, such as producing the first working draft of the human genome, helping global researchers develop a vaccine for the Ebola virus, and playing a leading role in cancer genome research. The university is also home to one of the world's top marine mammal research centers. Its internationally recognized faculty includes 14 members of the National Academy of Sciences, 26 fellows of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and recipients of the Presidential National Medal of Science and the Benjamin Franklin Medal from the Franklin Institute, one of the oldest and most prestigious science awards in the world. Anyone who is lucky enough to have visited the UC Santa Cruz campus is immediately struck by its beauty. Nestled between the Pacific Ocean and redwood forests, the campus offers students a spectacular backdrop to their education. Students hike trails to class, elephant seals can be heard in the background, and stunning sunsets can be seen from university grounds. These breathtaking surroundings have attracted a creative and passionate student body that has proudly embraced environmental, social, and political causes--and a sense of humor. In 1986, the students selected their now-famous official mascot--the Banana Slugs. Since 1965, UC Santa Cruz has created an atmosphere of discovery and activism, shaping minds, pushing the frontiers of knowledge, and making our world a better place. I congratulate Chancellor George Blumenthal and the faculty, staff, alumni, and students of UC Santa Cruz on this 50th anniversary and wish this extraordinary institution continued success in the future.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I listened to every word as my friend spoke, and I respect the words from my colleague from West Virginia very much, but I just want to be clear. I could not disagree with them more. Why would the majority leader and my friends push for the overturning of a Clean Power Plan rule that will, in fact, save lives-- that is a fact because when the air gets cleaner, you save lives--and will also protect our planet from the ravages of climate change? I don't know why they would take that stand. I really don't. When we are sworn in here, above all we are supposed to protect the health and safety of the people of our Nation, not protect one utility over the other. That is the private sector. We are here to protect lives and to protect the planet. I am going to go into depth as to why I feel this is very wrongheaded. I particularly have great respect for our majority leader. Senator McConnell has the power to bring anything before the body that he chooses. That is his right, and he has done that. But I must question this--given what happened in Paris and the need to keep America safe: Why are we going after the Clean Air Act today? It doesn't make sense. We should be moving to the omnibus budget agreement. We should be looking at every part of that budget to make America safe. For example, in the EPA budget, we could look at ways to improve chemical safety and how to protect our reservoirs. We could look at the Department of Homeland Security and how we can step up security at our ports, airports, border checkpoints, and railroads. We could look at funding biometrics, which could help us fight against homeland terrorism. In the State Department, we could look at ways to enhance security at our embassies and consulates. There is a lot of talk about Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, but the Republican budget cut embassy security. How about looking at that? Why don't we look at the Office of Personnel Management and look at ways we could boost our cyber defenses after one of the largest data breaches in our government's history. The Department of Justice needs to make sure the FBI and local law enforcement have the resources they need to keep our families safe. I compliment everyone who came to the table and got a universal agreement on the budget for the next 2 years. Why are we looking at repealing a Clean Power Plan rule instead of taking up that budget agreement and looking--in a bipartisan way--at every single agency that we fund to make sure they are doing everything to keep America safe? I was talking to one of my colleagues from New York, and he pointed out that the terrorists have been after us since 9/11. So we know we have been doing something right. Let's look at what we are doing right and see if there is anything we are not doing right. Let's beef it up and make sure that our refugee policy is the right policy. We have a lot of work to do, but, no, here we go again. Just 2 weeks ago Senate Republicans led an attack on one of our Nation's landmark environmental laws, the Clean Water Act, and we defeated them. Now they are back again, and this time they are against clean air. They are attacking the Clean Air Act and the President's commonsense proposals to address dangerous climate change. Of course, most of them don't even believe climate change is happening. They say: Well, we are not scientists. That is right; you are not. So why not listen to the 98 percent of scientists who know this is happening? The Senate is considering at least one Congressional Review Act resolution, and the one we are talking about now has to do with existing powerplants. Senator Capito has introduced that legislation that would block the Clean Power Plan for existing powerplants from going into effect. This is dangerous. It is dangerous because we would be throwing out the first rules to reduce carbon pollution for powerplants that emit 31 percent of our Nation's total carbon emissions. If we are ever going to attack the problem of too much carbon pollution, we have to go to use our powerplant side, and I commend the President for his courage and for doing the right thing. I have heard colleagues say that the process wasn't good. What more do you want? The process used to develop these rules was extremely open and inclusive. The EPA met with State officials and a broad range of stakeholders. They held 600 meetings for the Clean Power Plan alone. How many more meetings do they want--1,000? The EPA received more than 6 million comments from the public on both the existing powerplant rule and the new powerplant rule. Senator McConnell's resolution to block the standards for new powerplants and Senator Capito's resolution, which we are talking about now, to block the Clean Power Plan would not only toss out these extensive outreach efforts, but the hubris of this is that this resolution would prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from ever undertaking similar rulemakings, leaving no plan in place to address carbon pollution from this source. Let me repeat that. Not only does this resolution toss out this rule that would clean our skies, but they say that we can never do it again. This is an attack on the American people. I remind my colleagues that the EPA is setting these carbon pollution standards not because they decided one day to go after the coal companies. They did not. They are doing it because under the Clean Air Act, they have to do it. It is an authority they have that has been confirmed by the Supreme Court. I don't know if my colleagues want to hear this, but I am sorry, because I will repeat it: In the Massachusetts v. EPA case, the Supreme Court found very clearly that carbon pollution is covered under the Clean Air Act. George W. Bush fought it for 8 years. He fought it for 8 years, but the Supreme Court wrote the following in their decision: ``Because greenhouse gases fit well within the Clean Air Act's capacious definition of `air pollutant,' we hold that EPA has the statutory authority to regulate the emissions of such gasses.'' All that talk about how the EPA is overreaching and that carbon isn't dangerous and you don't have to fix it is so much baloney. The Court found it straightforwardly in Massachusetts v. EPA in 2007. Following that decision, the Obama administration issued an endangerment finding showing that current and future concentrations of carbon pollution are harmful to public health and welfare. Once that decision is made, we have to act. We can't make believe this planet isn't endangered. We can't make believe pollution from powerplants does not cause problems for our people. We have to act. The administration is well within its rights. If they did not act, they would be sued, and they would lose because they have to protect the people from too much carbon pollution. It is required under the Clean Air Act and was sustained by the Supreme Court in 2007. Not only do the Republicans oppose standards for old plants, but they even oppose standards for newly constructed plants. Both of these resolutions--both of them--are harmful to public health and the environment, and many groups oppose them. So I am going to show my colleagues some of the groups that oppose this Republican resolution, and America can decide whom it wants to stand with. The Republicans want to overturn the Clean Air Act rule, or these people. How about public health groups--the Allergy and Asthma Network, the American Lung Association, the Public Health Association, the Thoracic Society, the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, Children's Environmental Health Network, Health Care Without Harm, Trust for America's Health. That is as American as apple pie. These are the people who stand up and protect our health and the health of our families. Whom do we want to stand with--the Republicans, who are pushing this on us on a day when we should be making America safe from the terrorists, or these groups? Business groups: the American Sustainable Business Council, Business for Innovative Climate and Energy Policy, and Environmental Entrepreneurs. Consumer groups: Center for Accessible Technology, Citizens Action Coalition, Greenlining Institute, National Consumer Law Center, Ohio Partners for Affordable Energy, Public Citizen, TURN, the Utility Reform Network, Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, the Washington State Community Action Partnership, and A World Institute for a Sustainable Humanity. Latino groups--why do they care? Because a lot of times they live in communities that suffer from filthy air. The abc Foundation Green Forum, Citizens Energy, the City Project, Common Ground for Conservation/America. There are more Latino groups. It goes on an on: Emerald Cities Collaborative, GreenLatinos, Ideas For Us, Latino Coalition for a Healthy California, National Hispanic Medical Association, National Latino Evangelical Coalition, solar Four. I will just mention a few environmental groups: Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments. Could I just say, if we were to ask people ``Whom do you trust more-- the Senate or the nurses?'' dare I say the results? I would guess it would be 99 percent in favor of nurses as opposed to us. And why don't we listen to them? They don't want to see these rules overturned. Appalachian Voices, Arkansas Public Policy Panel, Center for Biological Diversity, Clean Air Task Force, Clean Water Action, Climate Parents, Conservation Voters for Idaho, Conservation Voters for South Carolina, Defenders of Wildlife, Earth Justice, Elders Climate Action, Environment America and 24 State affiliates, and Environmental Advocates of New York. It goes on. These groups whose names I am reading oppose this action by my Republican friends because they want clean air, they want to protect their families, and they want to fight climate change. Environmental Justice Leadership Forum, Environmental Law Policy Center, Health Care Without Harm, Interfaith Power & Light and 28 State affiliates, League of Conservation Voters and 7 State affiliates, Maine Conservation Voters, Montana Environmental Information Center, Natural Resources Defense Council, New Virginia Majority, PDA Tucson, PennEnvironment, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Protect Our Winters, Rachel Carson Council, Sierra Club, Southern Environmental Law Center, Southern Oregon Climate Action Now, Union of Concerned Scientists, Virginia Organizing, Voices for Progress, Western Organization of Resource Councils, Wisconsin Environment, World Wildlife Fund. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a list of groups that oppose this rule change be printed in the Record.

Mrs. BOXER. So we can see clearly--and I think the letter from the American Sustainable Business Council makes a very important statement: History shows that smart clean energy policies are good for our environment, our economy, and business. We urge you . . . to oppose both resolutions to disapprove the established safeguards. Another letter from many of these leading public health organizations--quote: Please make your priority the health of your constituents and vote No on these Congressional Review Act resolutions. . . . I find it very hard to comprehend that a majority of this Senate, led by my Republican friends, would side with the special interests above the people who simply want to breathe clean air, who simply want to see us dedicated to the fight against climate change. These groups understand the importance of taking action to reduce carbon pollution. When we reduce that dangerous pollution from powerplants, the Clean Power Plan will deliver important health benefits. This is what I hope the American people will understand. This is science. By the year 2030, if we defeat this Republican effort, here is what will happen to our communities: We will prevent up to 3,600 premature deaths, we will prevent up to 1,700 heart attacks, we will prevent up to 90,000 asthma attacks in children, and we will prevent 300,000 missed workdays and schooldays. Why on Earth does anyone want to vote to repeal a rule that will prevent 3,600 premature deaths, 1,700 heart attacks, 90,000 asthma attacks, and 300,000 missed workdays and schooldays? Why? The answer is special economic interests. That is the answer. It is a disgrace, a total and complete disgrace. We should be fighting for our families, not for the special interests. These are the cobenefits of reducing carbon. A lot of times we will hear my colleagues say: Carbon isn't dangerous. We breathe it out. It is not dangerous. The fact is, when we make these improvements to the powerplants to reduce carbon pollution, there are cobenefits. These are the cobenefits. They are, in fact, articulated. The Clean Power Plan will cut emissions from existing plants 32 percent below 2012 levels by 2030. The other thing is it is going to save $85 a year on utility bills. So everyone who says that this is terrible and that it is going to raise our energy bills doesn't know the facts. The Clean Power Plan also includes help to low-income Americans through the Clean Energy Incentive Program, which prioritizes early investment in energy efficiency projects in low-income communities. So if we reduce our use of energy because we are conserving energy, we are using less energy, we are cleaning the environment, and our bills go down. That is what we call low-hanging fruit--conservation. The American people support efforts to reduce dangerous carbon pollution. According to a League of Conservation Voters poll in August, 60 percent of voters support the Clean Power Plan, while just 31 percent oppose it. So I have to ask my colleagues, my friends whom I constantly fight with on this, why do you side with the special interests against the people--the people who will benefit from longer lives, fewer sick days, fewer schooldays lost, and fewer asthma attacks? Why? And why do you turn against 60 percent of the voters who support the Clean Power Plan? The only answer I can come up with is they are not really thinking about the majority of the American people; they are thinking about the special interests who call here all the time and push us to do things to help them. There was another report in January of 2015 by Stanford University. We have all heard of Stanford University. It is pretty well thought of. A lot of my colleagues went there and graduated from there. The Stanford University poll found that 83 percent of Americans, including 61 percent of Republicans, say that if nothing is done to reduce emissions, climate change will be a serious problem in the future. It also found that 74 percent of Americans say the Federal Government should take substantial steps to combat climate change. Look, all of this furor against these rules doesn't go with the American people; it goes against where the American people are. As I said, 83 percent of Americans, including 61 percent of Republicans, say reduce these emissions. We have to stop climate change. We already see the ravages around us. We already see climate refugees. We already see extreme weather. It is destabilizing. It is dangerous. According to the same poll, 74 percent of Americans say the Federal Government should be taking substantial steps to combat climate change. Yes, the President has listened and he has put forward these rules that are substantial steps because the emissions come from these powerplants--31 percent of the carbon emissions. So instead of just standing up here and demagoguing and saying this is horrible and frightening the American people, why not join hands with us and do this right? My State is a leader in clean energy. We are creating jobs hand over fist. We are doing great in California because we care about climate and we care about jobs, and those things go hand in hand. When we install a solar rooftop, we can't outsource that job, we have to hire someone in our State. That is why we have so much strong support in our State, because we see the results of pushing forward aggressively for clean energy. People are happy about it. They are proud of it. They are doing well. Climate change is real. We have to take reasonable steps to reduce carbon pollution, as with the Clean Power Plan. And all we see from our Republican friends, God bless them--I am very close with a lot of them--is attack after attack after attack on the environment, attacks against the Clean Water Act, attacks against the Clean Air Act, attacks against the Safe Drinking Water Act. These resolutions that are coming before us ignore the long and successful history of the Clean Air Act. We heard the same arguments against the original Clean Air Act that we are hearing today. In the 40 years since the Clean Air Act was enacted, our GDP--our gross domestic product--has risen not 100 percent but 207 percent. If we go back to those debates--and I have gone back to them--we would hear the very same voices coming from the very same side of the aisle decrying the Clean Air Act: Oh, this is going to be a disaster. Well, it not only wasn't a disaster, it was a resounding success. And where we export our ideas to the world, clean energy is an area where we are exporting those ideas. Supporting the Clean Air Act makes good fiscal sense. The benefits of this landmark law, the Clean Air Act, amount to more than 40 times the cost of regulation. Let me say that again. For every dollar we have spent complying with the Clean Air Act, we have gotten more than $40 of benefits in return. As I mentioned, my State--I am so very proud of it--we are on a path to meet or exceed our goals of reducing climate pollution to 1990 levels by 2020, just 5 years from now. That is required in our State-- AB 32. By the way, Big Oil and big polluters tried to overturn it on the ballot, and the people said: Go home. We are happy. We like this. We embrace it. And they turned back the millions of dollars spent by Big Dirty Oil, and we won. Clean air won. We are on the path to achieving our ultimate goal of reducing emissions by 80 percent by 2050. Imagine. During the first year and a half of my State's carbon reduction program called cap and trade, we added 491,000 jobs. So all this fearmongering about jobs lost is so much fearmongering because, guess what, look at my State--491,000 jobs added. And that job creation actually outpaces the national growth rate of jobs. California has been a leader in reducing its carbon footprint, and the United States must take steps to address this threat. I am just going to go back and read to my colleagues the main prediction of mainstream scientists made many years ago about what would happen if we weren't aggressive on climate. One, temperature extremes, they said, would be more frequent. NOAA scientists predicted that 2015 would be the hottest year since recordkeeping began and it will displace 2014. So the first prediction by the scientists that temperature extremes would be more frequent has been proven true--2015 will be the highest year on record, and before that 2014 was the hottest year on record. Secondly, they told us when I took over the chair of the EPW committee--which I regretted having to hand over the gavel to my friend Senator Inhofe, but I did hold it for about 6 years, if my memory is correct. A little over 6 years I had the gavel, but who is counting. The fact is, we called the scientists before the committee. They said temperature extremes would be more frequent. That has proven out. They said heat waves would be more frequent. That has proven out. They said areas affected by drought will increase, and Lord knows the West knows that has been proven. Wildfires would be bigger and more frequent, they said. We know in the West that is true. Tropical storms and hurricanes will be more intense. Just ask New Jersey and New York. There will be more heavy precipitation and flooding events. We have seen that with our own eyes. We have seen cars floating down the streets in Texas. Polar sea ice will shrink. That is a fact. Sea levels will rise. That is a fact. All of these predictions by climate experts have become a reality today. So I ask my friends, Why are you willing to gamble? Why are you willing to take this gamble and walk away from trying to reduce the ravages of climate change? That is immoral in the face of what we know from the scientists and with what we know from reality in the States. We see all the predictions coming true. The fact is that climate change endangers the health of our families and our planet. We cannot delay action to reduce carbon pollution. I thank President Obama for his leadership on this critical issue. These rules are an essential element of the leadership on climate change. There is no doubt about it. At the end of this month President Obama and other leaders will gather to reach an agreement on how all of the nations will work to reduce carbon pollution that is causing climate change. Nearly 160 nations have reduced their plans. I ask my Republican colleagues that if you don't like President Obama's plan, don't just repeal it, tell us how you would reduce harmful carbon pollution. Tell us how you are going to save all these lives. Tell us how. Explain to us how you are going to prevent 3,600 premature deaths, 1,700 heart attacks, 90,000 asthma attacks in kids, and 300,000 missed workdays and schooldays. Where is your plan? Don't just get up there and say it is going to cost more for electricity, because the fact is, we have a special part of this rule that addresses the costs and will actually save money for consumers because we will push the low-hanging fruit of energy efficiency. These resolutions will take us backward, prevent us from acting to avert the worst impacts of climate. This Republican initiative is going to endanger the health of millions of our children and families from dangerous carbon pollution and will stop the cobenefits to them from going into effect. I know we are going to have a robust debate. As I said at the start, I think we ought to be debating the omnibus budget agreement. I think we ought to be debating how to keep America safe from the terrorists instead of figuring out ways to repeal a law that if you are successful, will in fact mean adverse health consequences for our people. We should be debating how to keep America safe today. We are not debating that. I am very sorry about that, and I agree with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who say they know the end result of this. Yes, there is a majority of people here who are going to vote to repeal these clean power rules. We know that. Yes, we know that will go to the President and, yes, we know the President will veto that and, yes, we know when that comes back we are going to sustain the President. We know the outcome. Why not get to work on keeping America safe? Go to this omnibus budget resolution, look throughout the budget and see ways we can make sure our people are kept safe from terrorists and, for goodness' sake, while we are at it, keep them safe from pollution. That is something we have in our hands. What is before us today will not keep them safe from pollution, and I look forward to this being rejected at the end of the day. I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

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

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, we are about to vote on whether we want to go to conference with our Transportation bill that passed this body with well over 60 votes in July. We have been pushing hard--Senators on both sides of the aisle--to move the House toward a situation where we can finally go to conference and reconcile the two bills. We are at that point, and I certainly hope we get a very solid vote. I am also hopeful the Wicker-Feinstein motion does succeed, and I certainly will try my best to raise it in the conference. We still have about 1.5 million unemployed construction workers since the recession. We have seen terrific job growth, but we know it hasn't hit all the sectors, so this is an extremely important bill. Also, we know that thousands in businesses rely on a robust highway trust fund. Whether it is the granite people, the cement people, they are all for going to conference. Whether it is the international association of machinists or it is the labor union, the chamber of commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, it is a rare and glorious occasion to see everybody come together and say: Let's get a bill. We want to have a robust bill. We don't want to have a bill that is business as usual and this is why--we have 60,000 bridges that are deficient. They were not built with the kinds of traffic they are now withstanding in mind, so we must have this vote to go to conference. I thank the majority leader, Senator McConnell, for his work and the Democratic leader, Senator Reid. I also extend my thanks to Senator Cantwell, who worked so hard with other Senators on this side to get Ex-Im included in this bill. We will have the Export-Import reauthorization in this bill. I am very excited to get to conference. My goal is just to put it on the table, to bring to that conference the bipartisan spirit we had when we did this bill in the Senate. When I thank both the majority leader and the Democratic leader, it is because they put strong people on this conference. I think it is going to be a strong conference. We have a lot of similarities. Somebody who looked at both bills said the House bill is about 90 percent similar to the Senate bill. This is a good thing. This means we don't have to take our time because the trust fund, the authorization runs out very soon, right before Thanksgiving. So it is a good moment for the Senate. I think we showed leadership on both sides of the aisle on getting this bill done. We continue to work well together, both leaders have sent strong conferees to the conference. I know our staffs are already speaking, and I am hopeful we get a strong vote, which I think we are going to have in a few minutes. Am I correct it is about 3 minutes from that vote?

Mrs. BOXER. All right. So in 3 minutes I hope we have a solid vote to take our bill to conference with the House, where I will work very closely with Chairman Shuster and the rest. The last point I make is I read that Congressman DeFazio--who is our Democratic ranking member in the House T&I Committee--has had a very serious eye situation and had to go for emergency surgery. I wish to say my heart is with him. He is a very important person in terms of weighing in on the transportation needs. I will work with him, I will speak with him, and I am very hopeful that although he may not be present--I hope he will be present for the conference--if he is not, I wish to reassure him that we will take his concerns into this conference. I am looking forward to a strong vote. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to yield back all time and proceed.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, first, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Cardin manage our side.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am going to make a statement about S. 1140, which is before us. Senator Barrasso, may I make my statement, due to a hectic schedule? I won't go very long. Is that all right with you. Thank you, my friend. I thank Senator Barrasso. It is kind of commonplace here that it is another day and another attack on the environment. Today is no exception. Today it is an attack on the Clean Water Act. That is what I believe S. 1140 does. The name of this bill is the Federal Water Quality Protection Act. I tell you, if we could sue for false advertising, we would have a great case because this bill doesn't protect anything. It allows for pollution of many bodies of water that provide drinking water to 117 million Americans, 1 in 3 Americans. Their drinking water will be at risk if my friend's bill passes. That is why I feel so strongly about it. We see it on this poster: 117 million Americans are served by public drinking water systems. That is 94 percent of public drinking water systems that rely on these headwater streams. It affects 1 in 3 Americans in 48 States. We are talking about a bill that is called the Federal Water Quality Protection Act, but it is about pollution, not protection. In a way, when we name these bills the opposite of what they are--remember, this is called the Federal Water Quality Protection Act when in fact it is going to lead to contamination of waterways. It reminds me of the book ``1984'' in which the government is making sure people believe different things, and they have slogans like ``war is peace,'' and you think about it, and finally you cannot tell the difference between war and peace. Pollution is not protection, and this bill will lead to pollution because S. 1140 blocks the final clean water rule that clearly protects these waters while exempting ditches and storm water collection and treatment systems, artificial ponds, water-filled depressions, puddles, and recycled water facilities. What you will hear from the other side is, oh, the Obama administration has written a rule that is protecting puddles. That is nonsense. The fact is, the clean water rule is going to bring certainty to the Clean Water Act, and it is going to protect the drinking water of 117 million Americans. Yet my Republican friends want to stop it. The exemptions that are in there would be gone, not only the exemption from ditches, storm water collection, artificial ponds, water-filled depressions, and recycled water facilities, but also the exemptions for agriculture and forestry. So we are going to have a situation where there is more chaos surrounding our water laws. It is going to lead to confusion for businesses and landowners, and it is going to take us back to square one to figure out a whole other rule. Following two Supreme Court decisions, we shouldn't pass legislation that would create even more uncertainty and invite years of new litigation. The other thing you hear from the other side is, oh, this clean water rule the Obama administration wrote--they didn't listen to the public. Well, more than 1 million comments were received during a comment period that lasted over 200 days, and over 400 outreach meetings with stakeholders and State and local governments were conducted. So this bill--by sending us back to square one--ignores this robust outreach, and it will wind up wasting millions of taxpayer dollars, forcing EPA to go right back to square one. How many more comments do these friends of mine on the other side of the aisle want? My God, there were 400 outreach meetings over 200 days and more than 1 million comments. It makes no sense to me. Nothing is more important than protecting the lives of the American people, and when we weaken the Clean Water Act, that is what we do. I will show a photograph. This was the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland, OH, decades ago. It caught on fire. It caught on fire because there was no regulation and there were all kinds of toxic substances on the waterway. Our lakes were dying. And this one--when the people saw it on fire, they said enough is enough. They demanded the Clean Water Act. We passed it--I wasn't here then; it was 1972--by an overwhelmingly bipartisan majority. We have made tremendous progress. Today our rivers, lakes, and streams are far cleaner than they were, and the Clean Water Act has been one of our most successful laws. Let's look at the support for the Clean Water Act. This is unbelievable, when you see this. This is overwhelming public support for the clean water rule that my friends on the other side of the aisle, the Republicans, want to stop in its tracks. Seventy-nine percent of voters think Congress should allow the clean water rule to move forward, and 80 percent of small business owners support protections for upstream headwaters in the EPA's new clean water rule. So somebody has to explain to me--and I am sure my friends will try to, and I look forward to hearing their reasoning--why they are going against 79 percent of the voters and 80 percent of small businesses. It makes no sense. The bill takes us in the wrong direction. That is why over 80 scientists with expertise in the importance of streams and wetlands, as well as the Society for Freshwater Science, oppose this bill. I have received opposition letters from so many groups, I am going to read them to you. And think about these groups. These are objective groups. These are nonpartisan groups. Under public health, there is the American Public Health Association, the Physicians for Social Responsibility, and the Trust for America's Health. Under scientists and legal experts, there are 82 scientists, 44 law professors, and the American Fisheries Society. Under business, there is the American Sustainable Business Council representing 200,000 businesses that oppose this bill, and there are 35 U.S. breweries. That is kind of interesting. The breweries count on clean water. They are very upset about the Barrasso bill. They oppose it. Under sportsmen, there is the American Fly Fishing Trade Association. I thought my Republican friends support outdoor recreation. The Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, the Illinois Council of Trout Unlimited, the International Federation of Fly Fishers, the Izaak Walton League of America, the Florida Wildlife Federation, the National Wildlife Federation, the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, and Trout Unlimited oppose this bill. Under environmental, there is the Alliance for the Great Lakes, American Canoe Association, American Rivers, and the BlueGreen Alliance. Mr. President, I am not going to go on that much longer. I am just going to finish reading this list because when I speak--OK, you know I am a strong environmentalist. I am wearing my green today on purpose. These groups are very concerned about the Barrasso bill, as are 79 percent of voters. Here are the other groups that weighed in: BlueStream Communications, California River Watch, and Central Ohio Watershed Council. They know because they have algae blooms coming to their lakes. Continuing, there is Clean Water Action, Clean Up the River Environment, Coastal Environmental Rights Foundation, Defenders of Wildlife, Earthjustice, Endangered Habitats League, Environment America, Evangelical Environmental Network. Do you want to know why the Evangelical Environmental Network is here? Because they believe that with this bill we are harming God's creation. That is why they are involved. Continuing, Greenpeace, Gulf Restoration Network, Kentucky Waterways Alliance, Lake Champlain International, League of Conservation Voters, Massachusetts River Alliance, National Parks Conservation Association, Natural Resources Defense Council, Nature Coast Conservation, New Jersey Audubon Society, Northwest Environmental Advocates, Ohio Environmental Council, Ohio River Foundation, Prairie Rivers Network, River Network, Roots & Shoots, University of Tampa, Sierra Club, Southern Environmental Law Center, Surfrider Foundation. Under rural development, there is the Center for Rural Affairs. There are reasons all these groups--scientists and biologists--have come together. They want to protect the waterways of the United States of America. This bill will take us back to square one. This bill goes against the most incredible group of opponents. This bill ignores the will of the people. So I am very hopeful that we will have enough votes to stop the special interests that want to keep dumping toxic material and dangerous material into our waterways. I know Senator Barrasso and Senator Inhofe would like time. With that, I yield the floor. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the first Republican speaker is done, it goes back to a Democrat, then back to a Republican, if that is OK with everybody.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank very much my colleague and subcommittee ranking member, Senator Ben Cardin, for taking the lead today on this opposition we are expressing to a very radical bill that will essentially, in my view, in many ways repeal the heart of the Clean Water Act. The Clean Water Act came about because the Cuyahoga River in Ohio went up in flames because there was so much pollution and there were so many toxins in the water there, and people recognized--this was in the 1970s--that we were endangering our families and the health of our families. So the Clean Water Act was written, and it basically said that if a river or a stream or a body of water found its way into a source of drinking water or a recreational body of water, the people who were dumping this stuff into this natural environment had to get a permit and had to show us that it was safe. It is as simple as that. That is why we have overwhelming support. I had a chart, and now I don't have it, reflecting 79 percent in support across this Nation for moving ahead with the clean water rule. Then comes the Barrasso bill, which has a beautiful name--protecting the waters of the United States--and it reminds me of the book ``1984'': War is peace, love is hate, and the rest. Big government is telling you what to think. Really, this is not a bill that protects our water. It is not. It is a bill that essentially protects polluters and endangers 117 million people who want to drink clean water. This is a right in our country. You don't want to be frightened when your child swims in a stream or drinks water that might make him or her sick. So what we do with this bill, what Senator Barrasso, my friend--and he is my really good friend--does here is essentially to take the Clean Water Act and stands it on its head. He says we are not going to worry about all of these bodies of water that feed into the Nation's drinking water supply for 117 million people, and we are going to say you are free to dump into that water everything you want. In closing, I have often said that when I go home, people come right up to me and say: Barbara, you need to do this; and, Barbara, you have to fight for that. Never, in all my years in elected life--40 years since I started, which is hard to believe--has anyone come up to me and said: The water is too pure. The water is too clean. My drinking water is perfect, don't make it safer. My air is pristine; don't pass any more laws. It is the opposite. So what this would do today is take us back, back, back--back to the days when rivers caught on fire, back to the days when you worried a lot about drinking water. And as a person who wrote the law on protecting the quality of drinking water for children, this is a step backward. It is all about the farm bureau. And I get it, but I don't think they really understand the rule that is coming out, where millions of people actually commented on the rule, where they had hundreds of meetings. This is an EPA that wants to work with the people. So I hope we will reject this and that we can move on and let this clean water rule work its way through the courts and become the law of the land. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating the 125th anniversary of Yosemite National Park, a California treasure nestled against the stunning backdrop of the Sierra Nevada mountain range. In 1864, President Abraham Lincoln signed the Yosemite Grant Act, a landmark bill granting 39,000 acres of Yosemite Valley and the Mariposa Big Tree Grove to the State of California. This was the first time the United States had ever set aside land to protect it for the public to enjoy. Three decades later, Yosemite became the Nation's third national park--1,500 square miles of stunning waterfalls, magnificent sequoia trees, breathtaking mountain peaks, and portions of ancestral homeland for several American Indian tribes and groups. Over the years, Yosemite National Park has been a leader, becoming the first national park to hire a female law enforcement ranger, open a museum, and establish partnerships to help preserve Yosemite for future generations. Yosemite has also championed efforts to reduce waste and pollution by establishing recycling programs in the 1970s and operating a fleet of hybrid electric shuttle buses. Since its earliest days, Yosemite National Park has provided sanctuary, comfort, and inspiration to millions of visitors from across the globe who come to experience its natural splendor, rich geologic history, and abundant wildlife. The timeless beauty of Yosemite National Park is a testament to the vision and commitment of countless dedicated people and institutions over the past 125 years. I want to express my deep gratitude to the staff, volunteers, and friends of Yosemite for all they do to protect this natural wonder, and I am pleased to join in honoring this special anniversary occasion.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I know Senator Collins would like to speak, so the way I would recommend we go is 5 minutes to Senator Manchin, 15 minutes for me, and how many minutes for the Senator from Maine?

Mrs. BOXER. I am so sorry. This has been a contentious matter. So I would say to Senator Manchin, if you want to go first, then I will follow, and I am sure Senator Thune will have comments.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I reserve the right to object because I want to make a suggestion. I ask consent that we modify this matter so that we can pass an amendment to extend the PTC deadline--the deadline for positive train control--to make it a 1-year extension to December 31, 2016, and that that be agreed to. Right now, it is 3 years with a 2-year possible extension beyond that. I ask that it be changed to 1 year, and that following the use or yielding back of time, the Senate then proceed to a vote on passage of the bill with my amendment.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I just want to say to my friend I am not surprised, but I am still quite disappointed because I think it is horrible precedent to take a provision out of an underlying bill that we have all worked so hard on and attach it--a 3-year provision, a 3- to-5-year provision, a delay in this safety measure--on a 3-week extension. Why didn't my friend pull out some of the good things in there for safety, such as the House rental bill, which says you can't lease a car that has been under recall? He didn't do that. I am not blaming him at all. I know it was a process. I know that. We didn't pull out the increased fines on NHTSA for car manufacturers who kill people because of their negligence. I feel it is a terrible precedent, but I will not object, and I am going to explain that later. Having withdrawn my objection, I would ask that I may have the floor for 15 minutes immediately following the vote, if that is possible, and I would give 5 minutes of that timeframe to my colleague.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. No, we don't. Mr. President, I just want to thank my friend. It is such a privilege to work with him on these infrastructure issues. I often say we don't work too well together on environmental issues--maybe in another life we might--but right now, in this life, we work really well on infrastructure. So does our staff. I am proud of them. I came down here to try and change a part of this extension--and I will explain it later--that had to do with delaying a safety requirement on the railroad. I feel strongly in my heart about it. By the same token, I agree with my friend that we have to get this bill done. This will be a 6-year authorization, as my friend knows. He insisted on it. We have 3 years of pay-for. We never give up. Maybe somehow a miracle will happen and we will find more. But right now, Senator McConnell protected our pay-fors. For me, it is a strange day. I am very disappointed in this. I call it a rider that was put on this bill. But I am very pleased that the House is moving forward. My friend cited things that he likes-- certainly, expediting some of the rules so we don't get these projects dragged out. My sense of it was that I like the fact that we kept the equitable share. We didn't change the share between transit and roads. We certainly added, with my friend's help, a freight title. So there are many good things. It is a mixed bag for me today. I agree with my friend that we need to move fast on the underlying bill, and I look forward to going to conference.

Mrs. BOXER. Of course.

Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Senator. How much time remains of my 15 minutes?

Mrs. BOXER. Since I did yield about 5 minutes to my friend, I ask unanimous consent for another 5 minutes.

Mrs. BOXER. Then, of course, Senator Thune will have all the time that he wants to disagree with most of what I am going to say about positive train control. That is part of the debate that goes on here.