Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I will take my time now. I know my friend wanted to have a little time, so I will yield to Senator Inhofe.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I do want to thank Senator Thune, Senator Nelson, Senator Inhofe, and others who did something good today, which is to allow us to vote to make sure that we have the head of the Federal Railroad Administration. Finally, after 8 months, Sarah Feinberg got a vote. It is very important. I am glad all this wrangling that we had back and forth led to that happy situation because we need her in place. Frankly, we need her in place to oversee this positive train control. I want to quote what she stated. She stated that worries of a train exploding in the middle of a city have caused her sleepless nights. This is an Administrator who cares deeply about her role in safety. There was an article written by someone today that said I stood alone in my opposition to moving forward with a 3- to 5-year extension and taking that extension out of the underlying bill and tacking it on to a 3-week highway bill extension. I want to point out that I did not stand alone and I do not stand alone. Senator Blumenthal is hoping to come here later and make his remarks about the fact that he opposed this. I speak here for Senator Feinstein, my great colleague--my senior colleague--who actually wrote the original legislation because these crashes were occurring. And I want to read a little bit from Senator Gillibrand, who is on a train headed to a funeral for a firefighter in New York. This is her statement: After so many preventable railway tragedies that have led to loss of life, it is an insult to the families who have lost loved ones to let the rail lobby slip a multi-year Positive Train Control delay into a three-week extension. The rail industry has purposefully dragged its feet in meeting its safety requirements, and now Congress is quietly aiding them further. It is without debate that Positive Train Control saves lives. The railroads must work as quickly as possible to implement this life-saving technology, so that the millions of Americans who commute by rail every day can do so safely--and Congress needs to do its job and hold the rail industry accountable. As I said when Senator McConnell offered the unanimous consent request, I think it is a terrible precedent to place a major safety rollback--I would not call it a repeal; I would say rollback--on a 3- week extension of the highway trust fund. It just isn't right. I am very grateful to the Washington Post for writing a very strong statement--I would say article--about what happens when you don't have positive train control on a train. Positive train control is technology that allows the train to slowly come to a stop if there is a real problem, such as another train crossing or a car. It was in 2008 when we really moved on positive train control. A horrific accident occurred in Chatsworth, CA, where a Metrolink passenger train and a Union Pacific freight train collided. It was due to a distracted engineer. This preventable accident resulted in the deaths of 25 people and injury to 135 others. Friends, we are not talking about some scientific experiment here. We are talking about real life, where trains collide, where real people die and get hurt. I have met some of the families. Afterwards, Senator Feinstein and I got together. She was great, and it was great to work with her. We passed the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008, mandating the installation of positive train control on major passenger commuter and freight rail lines by the end of this year, 2015. Again, I speak for her in my remarks. She is distressed that the 2015 deadline would be extended as much as it was without a chance to really look at the details in the conference, which we hope to have soon. For more than 45 years--45 years--the National Transportation Safety Board, or NTSB, has advocated PTC technology. This isn't something new. But it wasn't until 2008 that Senator Feinstein and I got the legislation done. Let me say this. NTSB is amazing. They are the ones who show up after horrible crashes of rail, of plane, and they are the ones who make really important safety recommendations. Well, actually, they work with the FAA. So they are the ones who come forward after an accident. They do the investigation, and they make the recommendations. Now, this is what they said: If we had put PTC in all those years ago, 146 accidents or derailments could have been avoided with implementation of the PTC, and at least 300 fatalities and 700 injuries could have been prevented. Since the California accident, 14 PTC- preventable accidents or derailments have occurred. So let's be clear. People are dying and they are being injured because we don't have positive train control. Now, the good news--the great news for my State--is that Metrolink and Caltrain already have put PTC on. Amtrak has put it on certain of their runs. So it is happening. But some of the railroads are dragging their feet. They have every excuse in the book. Some of the reasons, I think, do need our attention. For example, there are problems with spectrum, and there are problems with rights-of-way. We can work on that. But as Senator Blumenthal said, instead of giving these 3-year delays, there need to be what he calls metrics so we can ascertain, before they get all this time, what they are doing. Are we going to be faced here in this body in years to come with more requests for delay? Well, if we are not really looking over the shoulder of the railroads, the answer is, clearly, yes. They don't want to save the money. And, by the way, the cost-benefit ratio on this is overwhelming. It is overwhelming. I said before, rhetorically, that it is very interesting that the only piece of freestanding legislation that was pulled out of the bill and placed on this 3-week extension was this delay in positive train control safety--nothing else, nothing else. This was cherry-picked-- nothing else. I have worked with several Senators because one of my constituents, Cally Houck, lost two daughters who rented a car to go on vacation. They were in their twenties. The car was under recall, but the agency rented it to them anyway. It exploded. They died. Mrs. Houck couldn't believe we didn't have a law that said you can't rent a car that is under recall. I bet, if I asked anybody--any stranger to me--if they think they are allowed to rent a car that is under recall, they would say: Of course not. Well, you can. I have fought for years, and I have gotten help from Senator Schumer, and Senator McCaskill actually got the bill passed. I am very grateful to her. That is in the underlying bill. Why didn't we take that out and put it on immediately so this can go into effect immediately? I think the Washington Post gave us what they think. They wrote a story--a very important story--in the front page yesterday or the day before, Monday. I want to just say we all know that there are special interests here. By the way, I like to work with the railroads because they do a lot of good things. They are very powerful, they are very strong, and they have a very powerful lobby. It is not a Republican lobby or a Democratic lobby. It is a lobby that covers everybody. Let me quote what the Washington Post article notes: Rail safety has never been a more pressing issue than it is today. So far, the people who have died in U.S. accidents that PTC could have prevented have generally been crew members or passengers. That could change in dramatic, catastrophic fashion. The number of rail tank cars carrying flammable material in the United States has grown from 9,500 seven years ago to 493,126 last year. Let me say that again: The number of rail tank cars carrying flammable material in the United States has grown from 9,500 seven years ago to 493,126 last year. Now, just imagine what happens when this flammable material is involved in a collision. We know. We have seen the balls of toxic fire. Seven trains have derailed this year alone, and their contents exploded. Now, I understand the pleas for delay. That is why I offered a 1-year delay to my friend, the chairman of the commerce committee. I offered him a 1-year delay. Nobody can tell me that a 1-year delay wouldn't work for now. We can look at it in the conference. If we need to extend it, that is fine. No, we weren't able to get it. To me, the only answer that keeps coming back is special interests earmark provision--special interests earmark provision--because it is the only provision that benefits one special interest that was put on this 3-week extension. Some people say: Why do you care so much? The House voted by voice vote. Do you know what? They were wrong. They shouldn't have. They shouldn't have put it on this bill. This was put on by the House, and it was wrong, wrong, wrong. Now, when I spoke with my chairman--my really good friend, Senator Inhofe--on the floor, I did say I am so pleased at the way we are moving in terms of the underlying bill. I believe we will have that bill, and I believe we will have that bill next week. Then why on earth did we have to take this out? If we are moving this bill forward, we didn't have to pluck out one of the provisions. I just don't understand it, other than what the Washington Post wrote in their story. I have to say that there are 60,000-plus bridges that are deficient-- structurally deficient. They are in the Presiding Officer's State, and they are in my State. Why didn't they pull out a couple of worst bridges and say ``fix those bridges''? All they did was pull out a provision that the railroads wanted--not a provision that commuters want, not a safety provision that will save lives. It is very discouraging. We all know about the Amtrak crash. I am going to show you a picture of that. It was splayed all across the paper. This is a photo of a destroyed Amtrak train in Philadelphia. We all know the disaster that occurred there. This could have been prevented. As a matter of fact, if I remember right, they were about to put positive train control on this stretch. They were getting ready to do it. Look at this--the suffering and the deaths, needless. If there was positive train control and if another train was coming, simply slow down that train and automatically avoid such a disaster as this. I am passionate about transportation. I am passionate about safety. I know my colleagues are, but we had a very different view about this. I can only say if anything good came out of this, it was the fact that we now have an Administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration. I think that was good because I feel better now knowing that someone who really cares about this now has officially been given the power to assert her authority. I look forward to working with Senator Thune as we move the underlying bill through. He knows how I feel. I want to thank him because he waited around until we had reached an agreement. I appreciate that because otherwise we could have had a complete shutdown of the entire highway program. We averted that because, with respect for our differences, we worked together all day and have the Administrator in place. I thank Senator Nelson and his staff as well as Senator Thune's staff. For me, having that done is something that means a lot and means a lot for safety across the board. I hope we will not be doing this in the future. I hope regular order will prevail. I hope we will not be pulling out important pieces of other bills and passing them as stand- alone bills when we are up against a deadline. I don't think it is the right way to govern. I don't think it is good governance. I think a lot of my colleagues feel the same way. This is behind us. Now we are going to work together. We are never going to take our eyes off this positive train control. We are going to make sure the railroads are stepping up, doing the right thing--and, by the way, some of them have. I told you two of my railroads have been fantastic. They put it all in place. They met the deadline. There are many others that are close to meeting the deadline, but there are too many that are hiding behind excuses and some that have real reasons why they haven't moved forward. I hope they are watching this today because I am not going away. None of us are going away. We are going to be watching this carefully and making sure this deadline is really a deadline, not some kind of political cover so the railroads can get out of doing what they have to do to save lives. When we take these jobs, that is our overwhelming responsibility--to protect and defend our people, whether it is abroad or at home. I again thank my staff, Senator Thune's staff, Senator Nelson's staff, Senator Blumenthal's staff, Senator Feinstein's staff--I hope I am not leaving anybody out--Senator Gillibrand's staff, and Senator Murphy's staff for getting us to a place where we are accepting this with a heavy heart. We are moving on. We are thankful we now do have in place an Administrator--a wonderful, wonderful Administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, it has now been more than 6 years since Congress gave the FDA authority to regulate the tobacco industry, and it is absolutely outrageous that we are still waiting for a final rule that would protect our children from e-cigarettes. What has happened while we wait? E-cigarette use among middle and high school students tripled last year compared to the year before. That means that as many as 2.5 million children are now experimenting with these dangerous products. While we are finally making progress in reducing traditional cigarette smoking among young people, the soaring use of e-cigarettes is putting our children at risk of lifelong addiction to nicotine. Every day that e-cigarettes continue to go unregulated, more and more children and teens are being exposed to nicotine--which according to the Surgeon General poses health risks for adolescent brain development. E-cigarettes also contain potentially dangerous chemicals like benzene, cadmium, formaldehyde, propylene glycol, and some of the very same nanoparticles that are in traditional cigarettes according to the California Department of Public Health. But those chemicals are masked by e-cigarette flavors like bubble gum and gummy bear--which are clearly marketed toward children. And the industry's dangerous targeting of young people is working. New research published in the Journal of the American Medical Association just this week shows that 81 percent of teens who have ever tried an e-cigarette started with a flavored one--81 percent. Combine those flavors with TV ads airing during the most popular youth TV shows and Big Tobacco is clearly seeking to lure the next generation into a lifetime of addiction to their products. A study published in the journal ``Pediatrics'' last year found that youth exposure to television e-cigarette advertisements increased 256 percent from 2011 to 2013. This is not an accident. Big Tobacco used the same marketing tactics with traditional cigarettes decades ago--until we stopped them. These companies will not stop until millions more are hooked on nicotine. So what do we do? We need to protect the health of our children by regulating e-cigarettes just like traditional cigarettes. The administration needs to issue the final FDA rule to regulate e- cigarettes, which is currently at OMB. It has been more than a year and a half since it was first proposed. While this rule may not go as far as I would like, it is a critical first step, and it must be approved immediately. First, the regulation should ban the sale of e-cigarettes to minors because it is just common sense. Take these dangerous products out of the hands of our children. Nearly every State already bans sales to minors--it is beyond time the Federal Government makes this the law of the land. Second, the FDA should subject products to FDA review before they can be marketed. Third, the FDA should ensure that e-cigarettes are labeled with health warnings. Fourth, I want the FDA to go even further and ban flavors and marketing tactics that appeal to children--and ban online sales as well. Now, we have seen some progress in how e-cigarettes are being handled--like the Department of Transportation's announcement yesterday that it will ban e-cigarettes from checked bags to reduce the risk of fires in flight. But we are still waiting for the final DOT rule prohibiting the use of e-cigarettes on board airplanes--where passengers are subject to the potentially toxic secondhand exposure. The cost of doing nothing is putting too many lives at risk. The research is clear, and as time goes by, Americans are worried for their health and safety--and parents are worried about the long-term health consequences for our children. Just listen to what Sondra, from Corona, CA, told me. She says, ``I have worked in our local high schools for almost 15 years. The e- cigarettes definitely need to be regulated for people under 18. I am consistently told by students that `these are better' than traditional cigarettes. They don't realize the harm and the addictive qualities are still present.'' There is no time to lose. We don't need another public health epidemic just as we have finally started to save lives by reducing cigarette smoking. I join my colleagues and urge the administration to finalize the pending regulation. We cannot wait another day.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to urge my colleagues to act to reauthorize the Perkins Loan Program--the Nation's oldest Federal student loan program and a critical lifeline for thousands of low-income students with exceptional need. This crucial program has the support of many higher education groups, including the Association of American Universities, the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities, the American Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities, the National Association of Financial Aid Administrators, the Coalition of Higher Education Assistance Organizations and many others--as well as dozens of individual colleges and universities across the country. Despite this broad support, funding for Perkins Loans expired on October 1. While our colleagues in the House unanimously approved the Higher Education Extension Act--which would extend the Perkins Loan Program for 1 year--the Senate has yet to act. And that inaction has left thousands of current and future students scrambling to figure out how to pay for school and institutions struggling to find another way to help students afford their education. This program has existed with broad bipartisan support since 1958 and has provided more than $28 billion in loans to students in all 50 States. In the 2013-2014 academic year alone, more than 539,000 new and returning students benefited from the Perkins Loans Program--including 46,065 students in California. Unlike the Federal direct lending programs, Federal Perkins loans are made and then repaid to the individual university. They are offered at a low, fixed rate of 5 percent--and repayment doesn't begin for 9 months after a student graduates, giving them enough time to get on their feet. The program also includes important loan forgiveness opportunities for those who decide to enter public service after graduating. This program particularly helps students who have tapped out all other Federal student aid options and still face a gap in paying for school or other expenses. It helps students bridge that funding hole so they don't have to turn to expensive private loans--which don't have the same protections as Federal student loans. But without this program, the California State Student Association estimates that more than 3,400 students in the California State university system alone could be forced to take out private loans or delay graduation. Student loan debt now exceeds $1 trillion. That's more than credit card debt. It's more than auto loans. In fact, it is second only to mortgage debt in this country. We owe it to current and future students to make sure college is as affordable as possible. That is what the Higher Education Extension Act and the Perkins Loan Program do. We have no time to spare now. Let's get back on track and take up the extension bill that the House already passed and ensure our students are not left in the lurch. Thank you.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, the death of Kate Steinle in San Francisco by a convicted felon who illegally crossed the border multiple times was horrific. It left a family heartbroken and shocked our community, our State, and our Nation. We cannot allow a tragedy like this to happen again. We should never give sanctuary to serious and violent felons, but this Republican bill is not the answer. Getting rid of sanctuary cities will not reduce crime--in fact, it will only increase crime and make us less safe. That is why this bill is opposed by law enforcement, immigrant rights organizations, faith groups, domestic violence groups, labor unions, housing and community development organizations, mayors of California's biggest cities, and the National League of Cities--as well as many others. The truth is that sanctuary cities keep our neighborhoods safe by promoting trust and cooperation between police officers and immigrant communities. And that trust is essential to protecting all of us. Let me give a quick example. A few years ago in Seattle, more than two dozen Asian women were sexually assaulted in the same neighborhood over a 2-year period. Because of the strong relationship between police and the community-- a community where police are generally prohibited from asking about immigration status--many of the immigrant victims were willing to come forward and share information with the police, which led to the perpetrator's arrest. Don't just take my word for it--listen to what law enforcement in our communities say about the importance of sanctuary city policies. As former San Jose Police Chief Rob Davis said: ``We have been fortunate enough to solve some terrible cases because of the willingness of illegal immigrants to step forward, and if they saw us as part of the immigration services, I just don't know if they'd do that anymore.'' As Ohio Chief of Police Richard Biehl explained: ``Sanctuary policies and practices are not designed to harbor criminals. On the contrary, they exist to support community policing, ensuring that the community at large--including immigrant communities--trusts State and local law enforcement and feels secure in reporting criminal conduct.'' Ending sanctuary policies would keep the voices of immigrant victims and witnesses quiet. That means crimes would go unreported, cases would go unsolved, and dangerous criminals would go unpunished. Ending these policies would actually give sanctuary to dangerous criminals because, without the help of immigrant communities, these violent offenders will continue to threaten our safety. We know this because there are many places in this country where immigrants do not feel safe coming forward. As Texas Sheriff Lupe Valdez said: ``A lot of undocumented individuals came from areas where they can't trust the police. The uniform has pushed them into the shadows. Good law enforcement cannot be carried out this way.'' Just listen to some of the immigrants who were too terrified to come forward and report horrific crimes. Take it from Maria, an immigrant survivor of serious domestic violence, who fled from Texas to Indiana, where her abuser tracked her down. When he came to her house at midnight, she was too afraid to call 911--fearing she could be deported--so she called her lawyer over and over. Because it was the middle of the night, her attorney was not at work and came in the next morning to a series of frantic messages left on her voicemail. Ultimately, Maria's abuser was not able to get into the house, but her life was in danger because she thought that law enforcement wasn't a safe option. Take it from Cecilia, a young Guatemalan girl in Colorado. Cecilia was sexually abused by a family friend at the age of 5. Her parents, undocumented immigrants, learned about the abuse, but they were terrified to report the crime to the police because they were told by family and friends that the police could not be trusted. They were told that, if they came forward, they would be reported to immigration and deported. A year later, the same perpetrator sexually abused another young child. It wasn't until the father of that child contacted Cecilia's parents that they decided to go to the police together, and the perpetrator was caught and prosecuted. But because of their initial fear of reporting the crime, another child was harmed. So why would we pass a bill that could discourage victims or witnesses from coming forward for help? Why would we pass a bill that would make it harder for law enforcement to solve crimes and keep our communities safe? This Republican bill is also dangerous because it would cut off COPS grants that help communities protect residents by hiring officers. We should be doing everything we can to help local police departments--not take away their ability to put officers on the street. Republicans also want to punish communities by taking away their community development block grants, which would hurt thousands of working families who rely on these funds for safe, affordable housing and other critical services. This GOP bill would also take away SCAAP funding, which reimburses State and local governments for the costs of incarcerating undocumented immigrants. This funding has been repeatedly slashed, and it has never been enough--especially in my State of California, which spends nearly $1 billion a year on these incarceration costs. These cuts would have devastating impact on States and local communities. Now, there are some California communities reviewing their specific policies and forging cooperation agreements with Federal immigration officials--and I think that's a good thing. I believe that State and local officials should examine their policies to ensure that they are preserving the trust that law enforcement has built in our communities, while keeping serious and violent felons off our streets. Unfortunately, this Republican bill would do the exact opposite--it would undermine the trust that has been developed between police and immigrant communities, and it would set back efforts to solve cases and put dangerous criminals behind bars. The real question is: Why are we even considering this bill? Why isn't Congress passing the bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform bill that the Senate passed more than 2 years ago? That bipartisan bill would make our country safer by adding 20,000 more Border Patrol agents; increasing surveillance; and hiring additional prosecutors and judges to boost prosecutions of illegal border crossings. The measure would also make clear that serious or violent felons will never get a pathway to citizenship or legal status. And the bill would bring families out of the shadows--so that they don't fear being deported or separated from their families . . . so they feel comfortable cooperating with police and reporting crimes in their communities. Let's make our communities safer by passing real immigration reform and by defeating this misguided Republican bill. I urge my colleagues to vote no.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating an extraordinary public servant, Detective William ``Bill'' Zimmerman, as he retires from the United States Capitol Police force, USCP. For 32 years, Detective Zimmerman has served the USCP with great distinction, including 28 years with the threat assessment section, the division responsible for investigating threats made against Members of Congress and their families. To every challenge, Detective Zimmerman brought unparalleled skill and dedication, ultimately helping to establish programs for threat assessment and management programs that are used by other law enforcement agencies across the United States and in Great Britain. Detective Zimmerman served as the first president of the Washington, D.C., chapter of the Association of Threat Assessment Professionals, and in 2004, he became the inaugural recipient of the association's distinguished Meritorious Service Award. Throughout his career, Detective Zimmerman consistently went above and beyond the call of duty to protect and serve. For my office, Detective Zimmerman was often our go-to person in an emergency, and he always handled any situation with professionalism, commitment, passion, and calm. Detective Zimmerman is not only the consummate professional, he is also a wonderful human being, and his well-deserved retirement is a huge loss for Congress. Ralph Waldo Emerson said, ``To know one life has breathed easier because you have lived, that is to have succeeded.'' By that and every other measure, Detective Zimmerman had a remarkably successful career, and I congratulate him, thank him, and wish him all the best as he begins the next exciting chapter.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Would the Senator yield so I could thank him for a minute?

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I appreciate the words of my friend from Texas. I just want to point out that our military is fully funded and that some of us believe our military is so important that it ought to be funded by real dollars, not make-believe smoke and mirrors. I have a press release from the ranking member, the top Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, who said he opposes using budget gimmicks to fund the Pentagon, and he declined to sign the NDAA, which is very unusual. If we really care about our military, and everyone does, we ought to fund with real dollars, not make-believe money--this one called OCO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this press release be printed in the Record.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I came over here because the American people keep hearing: Government shutdown. Government shutdown. What is going to happen? The opinion of Congress is the lowest of all times because we are not doing our job. We are not doing our work. We are facing three possible shutdowns. The first one is the possible shutdown of our entire transportation program, and that has 22 days left. On this one, I want to praise the Senate because we stepped up, Democrats and Republicans together, and we said: We are not going to let this happen; we are going to work together and get a bill. I am going to talk about that in a bit. The second date we face is in early November, when, if we don't raise the debt ceiling so we can pay for the programs everyone here voted for, the government will shut down and we will become, frankly, the people who have overseen for the first time a bankruptcy. We have to raise the debt ceiling. As Ronald Reagan said very eloquently--I don't have his exact quote, but he said something like this: Even the thought of not paying our bills, even the thought of not raising the debt ceiling should be avoided. But we face that made-up crisis. The third one is December 11, where all of our budget has to be looked at and we have to come to some agreement on the fair level of spending for both defense and nondefense and all the things we do. I am here to talk about the first deadline because I am intimately involved with this as the ranking member on the Environment and Public Works Committee. I want to start off by praising my chairman, Jim Inhofe. He and I don't see eye to eye on a lot of things, but we sure do when it comes to transportation. One hundred days ago--my colleague knows this--the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee unanimously approved the DRIVE Act. It has been 68 days since the Senate passed the bill by a vote of 65 to 34-- that is an overwhelming vote in a bipartisan way--and now we are down to 22 days before we shut down. People can say: Why are we going to shut down when the Senate has done its job? Because the House hasn't done its job. It is inexcusable. If we can find the bipartisan will to work together to pass a long- term transportation bill that increases funding for roads and bridges and transit projects, certainly they can find it in the House, and they should find that consensus there. We are up against this deadline. We keep hearing that the House--or I did--is going to act. Now, as far as we know, they have put off the markup of the bill until the day before we have a shutdown. That is ridiculous. I call on Republicans and Democrats over there to come together, just as we came together. It is painful here on so many issues, but we found the political will to do the right thing. Where is the House bill? In September, 68 organizations sent a letter to the House calling on the House to pass the Transportation bill. Look who signed this. I will mention a few: the National Association of Manufacturers, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Associated General Contractors, the Travel Association, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, the Laborers International Union, the American Bus Association, the AAA, the American Trucking Association, the Society of Civil Engineers, the American Public Works Association, the National Railroad Construction and Maintenance Association. This is pretty amazing. This goes on and on. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this list be printed in the Record.

Mrs. BOXER. All of these extraordinary organizations are behind the Senate bill--the Governors Highway Safety Association, American Concrete. This is America together. They are calling on us. And this is not a partisan issue. It is incumbent on the House to keep the reauthorization process moving forward and not wait until October 29 when we are on top of the deadline and we have to do another extension. We are all sick of it. Let me just say it doesn't work. If you went to the bank and wanted to buy a house and they said, ``I have great news from you, Mr. and Mrs. America: You have been approved for a loan, but it is only for a year,'' you are not going to buy the house. It is the same way with our State highway people. They are not going to build a new highway or fix a road or invest in a transit program if they only have a few days of an extension that they can rely on. They want us to have a long-term bill. We passed the 6-year bill here with 3 years of pay-fors. We have seen the organizations. I am saying that our people who drive on roads are Democrats, Republicans, Independents, liberals, conservatives, rightwing, leftwing, ``middlewing.'' It doesn't matter. This is one issue where we can come together, and the Senate proved we can come together. So our words--and I really speak for everyone. I know. I talked to Senator Inhofe, and he knows I am speaking today. The words we have for the House: Just do it. Just do it. If we can do it, you can do it. Short-term extensions don't work. I gave the example of going for a mortgage. You are not going to invest in a house if you can only get a year's mortgage. The same thing is true if you want to buy a new car. If you go to the bank and they say, ``Great news: You are approved, but it is only for 3 months, or 90 days,'' you are not going to buy the car. It is the same way for our States. I have a chart--I don't have it with me now--that shows how much the States rely on the Federal Government. I don't have it blown up, but I am going to go through this. It is so interesting. We have States that rely on the Federal Government highway program for anywhere from 30 percent all the way up to 100 percent. Many States rely on the Federal Government for over 70 percent. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this list of the percentages by State be printed in the Record.

Mrs. BOXER. Through the Chair, I want to thank the Senator so much because he was one of those people who really helped us. In addition, every member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, on both sides of the aisle, was terrific on this. In addition to the chairman, Senator Inhofe, I also want to single out Senator Durbin and Senator McConnell, because they stepped up from both sides of the leadership when it really looked as if it would never happen. We proved that we could do it. I am so grateful to my friend for showing his support because we have so many contentious issues. This is not one of them. I want to thank him very much for his comments.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, as the Marine Mammal Center, MMC, celebrates its 40th anniversary, I want to congratulate the staff, volunteers, and supporters of this extraordinary center for all they have done for decades to rescue and rehabilitate more than 20,000 marine mammals along our California coast. MMC was founded in 1975 by a small group of local residents who wanted to aid sick and injured marine mammals such as elephant seals, sea lions, whales, sea otters, and dolphins. Over the years, MMC steadily expanded its efforts to emerge as the only organization authorized by the National Marine Mammal Fisheries Service to rescue ill or injured marine mammals along 600 miles of California coast. This mission has become increasingly important as the effects of climate change threaten our oceans and the marine life that depend on them. MMC also has a robust scientific research program that serves as an incredible resource for information about mammal care, medicine, and health. MMC offers educational programs that engage the public and enrich science education for children, and their recently renovated headquarters will expand these efforts by allowing visitors to watch rescued animals be cared for at their modern animal hospital facility. For 40 years, MMC has worked tirelessly to protect our magnificent marine animals, and I know their work will continue to make a profound difference for this generation and every generation to come.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, due to the Jewish holiday, I was unable to attend votes this week. Had I been present, I would have voted against the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to H.R. 36, against the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to H.R. 2685, and against the motion to invoke cloture on amendment No. 2669.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I want to thank my colleague from Michigan for pointing something out today that I haven't heard before, which is that this vote we are going to have tomorrow, which is a revote on the Iran nuclear agreement, adding a couple of pieces regarding hostages and sanctions regarding Israel, is actually a dangerous vote, and I agree with her completely that it is a political vote. If you ask the people on the street what they think of Congress, we just are not thought of very well because the people see through this. They see through the politics of this. You know, we have already voted on this agreement. My friend Senator Corker, my chairman--I serve on that committee. I am very proud to serve with him. He says: Well, all we want is a vote on the agreement. We gave them a vote. We wanted an up-or-down vote on the agreement. Senator Reid asked for that twice, for a 60-vote threshold. Oh, no. Suddenly, even though Senator McConnell has said over the years that every single important vote is a 60-vote threshold, suddenly--this is an important vote. How well I remember a vote cast here on climate change legislation where we got--counting the people who weren't here who said they were for it--56 votes. We fell four votes short. Wouldn't it have been nice if I had gone to the floor and said: This is outrageous. This is outrageous. Let's have a 51-vote threshold. Well, we knew we needed 60. We didn't play games. We didn't play games with it. That is what we have here. We are playing games with an agreement which already has been voted on, and we had enough people voting in favor of the agreement, if I can say, to derail the Republican plan. Now derailing this agreement, in my view, means war. And I see my friend on the floor here from Arkansas, and he was the one person who said it. Let's just essentially, he said, bomb this thing away. Well, he is honest about it. Other people say: Oh, just go back and get another agreement. That is code word for ``no agreement.'' That is code word for ``war.'' We have spoken out on this very clearly, and it isn't as if we don't have other issues we need to deal with. The fact is, enough Senators said they support the agreement to derail the effort to stop it. Grow up, accept the fact, and move on. Use it in your campaigns just as we will use it in our campaigns. I do not think the people in this country want another war in the Middle East, and I feel very strongly that this is a conscience vote. So bring it up 10 times. I am not going to change my vote, especially when I see playing politics has become the way my Republican friends are dealing with this most sober issue. As you look on the horizon, we know there are a couple of real problems facing us. The budget runs out in 14 days. Are we going to have a government shutdown because some people don't think women should have the right to choose? Are we? I don't know, but we have 14 days to deal with it. Why aren't we dealing with it? We voted on the Iran agreement. It is not going to change. It is just politics as usual. People are sick of it. Mr. President, let's take a look at the Republican budget. The proposed Senate Republican budget would cut over one-half billion dollars from the Environmental Protection Agency's budget. I just came from a hearing--a very important and good hearing--where we looked at a horrible tragedy that happened in Colorado. EPA went in there, at the request of the State, to check whether this old mine that hadn't been cleaned up in generations caused a risk of a blowout. And when they started to do their testing, there was a blowout. EPA was devastated with that. What our committee looked at is how are we going to move forward. Well, we are not going to move forward, I say to my friends, when we cut one-half billion dollars out of the EPA budget that could be used to clean up these mines. When there is a devastating blowout, horrible chemicals, such as cyanide and lead, get into drinking water supplies and it destroys communities. Why would we want to have a budget that cuts so much from the Environmental Protection Agency that 80 percent of the people support? It is so popular. Congress is so unpopular; the EPA is popular. People want a clean environment. In all my years in office, no one has come up to me and said: The air is too clean. The water is too clean. They say the opposite. They say: You know what. My kid has asthma, clean up the air or they say: I am worried that I can't drink the water. I have to purify it. So instead of revoting on something we already voted on--and every Member, it is not like anyone was hiding. We all came out. We were either for the agreement or against it. I have to say my colleagues were wonderful in explaining their positions, and I was proud, but I am not proud to see us now go right back to the same thing. When we have all of these problems facing us, the Republican budget cuts $400 million from community health centers, preventing 620 new clinics from opening and keeping 2.6 million Americans from getting preventive and lifesaving care--that is right, 400 million from community health centers. How about the HOME Program, the Nation's primary affordable housing program? It would be practically eliminated with a 93-percent cut. This means a loss in production of about 40,000 affordable housing units across the country. The Centers for Disease Control, we know how important they are when we have an epidemic looming. It would be slashed by the Republican budget by $245 million, hurting our efforts to protect communities from diseases such as Ebola and the measles. We all thought the measles were gone. It came back in California and thank God for the CDC for helping us when we needed them. Then there is the Export-Import Bank. We extended its life and attached it to the Transportation bill, which is great, but the Export- Import Bank expired 78 days ago. And the Transportation bill that I worked so closely on with Leader McConnell, Senator Inhofe, Senator Durbin, and others--it is stuck in the House of Representatives. I don't know what to think about what they are doing over there, but they need to get going and get that Transportation bill into conference so we can do this. This is a bipartisan bill. But instead of pushing and working on that, we are revoting on an issue we already voted on. The Ex-Im Bank has real consequences. GE, General Electric, announced it will shift 500 jobs overseas because of the Bank's closure. So anyone who tells you it doesn't have an impact, they are wrong; it does have an impact. Five-hundred families are suffering because the Ex-Im Bank--which we did the right thing in the Senate--is stuck in the Transportation bill in the House. They have yet to mark their bill, and I hope they will. Then we have the debt ceiling, something Ronald Reagan warned us about over and over again: Don't play politics with the debt ceiling. I remind everybody, when Bill Clinton was President, we balanced the budget. I was here. That shows you how long I have been around. I didn't have these gray hairs then. So in those years we balanced the budget, created a surplus. And then what happened after Bill Clinton? Immediately, we had this humongous tax cut for the rich, and we had huge deficits under Republican President George W. Bush. Thank God, President Obama has cut that deficit in half, but we still have a debt. That is because two wars were put on the credit card and there were these tax cuts to the rich, which caused huge deficits, so the debt kept climbing up. Now we have to raise the debt ceiling to accommodate the past spending of this Congress. President Reagan was right: Don't play politics with the debt--even thinking you will hurts our economy. The last time we played these games it cost us a fortune, and it caused huge uncertainty in the markets. So we have the budget crisis, we have a Republican budget with huge cuts to programs we need, such as the Centers for Disease Control; we have a transportation bill, the authority for which runs out in October. We have all of these things. Yet what are we doing today? We are voting again on Iran. No one, in my view, is going to change their mind. I was thinking maybe some of my Republican friends might come over to our side in favor of the agreement since Colin Powell is for the agreement, Richard Lugar is for the agreement, John Warner is for the agreement, and Brent Scowcroft is for the agreement--these are all leading Republican voices--and others, many others. I don't see that happening. For those people who say it has been partisan, it has been partisan. Several Democrats joined Republicans against the agreement. Not one Republican--not one--despite all the leadership on their side outside the Senate--joined us, so the partisanship has been coming from the other side of the aisle. We are voting again on Iran, so maybe I thought next week we could take up some of these serious issues that I just outlined, these pressing, pressing issues: the budget, the debt ceiling, the Ex-Im Bank, all these incredibly important issues that we are facing. But, no, next week the majority leader has decided to take up abortion--abortion. What we are going to be faced with is a bill that says to a woman: You cannot have an abortion after a certain period of time. It is a ban--no exception for the health of the women. I wish to talk a little bit about that today. The bill, as it is coming forward, is extreme. It is a direct attack on women, on doctors, and on the law of the land called Roe v. Wade. It is unconstitutional because it offers no health exception. It bans abortion at a certain point in pregnancy, with no exception, no health exception: no help for a woman facing cancer, no help for a woman facing kidney failure, no help for a woman facing blood clots or other tragic complications during their pregnancy. This is a war on women, and that is what they are going to do. They are not going to the debt ceiling, they are not going to the budget, which must be fixed, and they are not going to Ex-Im, even though jobs are leaving the country. This bill they are taking up next week will revictimize survivors of rape and incest by assuming they are lying, forcing women to go through multiple medical visits to prove they have been victimized. It would throw doctors in jail for up to 5 years for helping a woman after a certain point in her pregnancy, when that doctor knows she risks paralysis, infertility, a woman who has cancer whose life would actually be in danger if that pregnancy is continued. But don't take it from me, take it from the women who have had to have these abortions, women who desperately wanted a child, such as Thais from California, who learned at the 20-week ultrasound there were multiple tragedies facing her baby's heart and lungs. The baby had no diaphragm, which means her baby would have suffocated to death once outside the womb. You would force that woman to go through a pregnancy, not to mention the impact on the baby. Then there is Emily from South Carolina, a 26-year-old mother of two girls. During her third pregnancy, she suddenly had extreme health symptoms, including blurred vision and intense abdominal pain. After testing, she was diagnosed with preeclampsia, which posed a serious threat to her health. Under this bill, she could not have been spared the risks to her health. So when we say there is a war on women, we mean it. We are not just saying words. Frankly, I am confused with everything else facing us. We had such a bipartisan breakthrough on the Transportation bill. I was so proud to work with the majority leader, so proud of the product that came out of that. I was proud to work with the Democrats and Republicans on the Environment and Public Works Committee--every one of whom was involved and supported the deal that went through. As a matter of fact, we had a majority of both caucuses. Why can't we build on that bipartisanship? Why do we have to go back to the usual corners? It is sad and unnecessary. But, you know what, we are going to be voting on Iran, so I am going to tell you why I am backing the deal. If you have to go through it again, I am going to go through it again. The key points of this agreement: No. 1, it cuts off the uranium pathway to a bomb; No. 2, it cuts off the plutonium pathway to a bomb; and, No. 3, it uses the most intrusive inspections regime ever negotiated. When people say: Oh, but they have 24 days to stall if somebody wants to look at their program, let's be clear, not one party in the world who is a party to a nuclear agreement has any deadline, even the United States. If there is a suspicion of a program being hidden, you can stall it off--but not this one. You have to let them in, in 24 days, or they are in breach. There is a mechanism to require Iran to provide the IAEA with access to those suspicious sites--that 24 day-limit that is not present in any other agreement. It requires the Iranians to disclose their past nuclear activities before they receive a penny of sanctions relief, and the United States and our allies have the ability to snap back multilateral sanctions. The bill that is going to come before us for another vote talks about how we cannot lift sanctions in this deal until certain conditions are met. But it ignores the fact that there is a whole other set of sanctions that are in place for Iran's terrorist activities, and those sanctions are not touched. Don't conflate the two and confuse people. There are sanctions for their nonnuclear activities, which include their horrific support of terrorism; and then there are sanctions for their nuclear activities, which we will be lifting if they agree and carry out the terms of this agreement, particularly since they will not have one penny lifted until they disclose every bit of their past activities. So let us see what else I can share with my colleagues as to why I support this deal. I have to say, at a time when Congress is not trusted and has the worst approval rating--I am so embarrassed by that--I have come to the point where I look at third parties to make my case. So, 29 of our Nation's top nuclear scientists, including 6 Nobel laureates, say this is a good deal; 60 bipartisan national security leaders say this is a good deal; over 100 former U.S. ambassadors say this is a good deal; three dozen retired U.S. generals and admirals say this is a good deal; 340 U.S. rabbis say this is a good deal; and 53 Christian leaders and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops--and we are going to be seeing the Pope here next week--say this is a good deal. So the religious leadership on the side of this deal, for the most part, is overwhelming because our religious people who lead us here want peace in the world. They do not want to see an escalation of war. We see what war brings. We lost, in the Iraq war, more than 4,000 of our people. I ask unanimous consent for 1 more minute.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, this is what our allies are saying: If the U.S. were to walk away from this deal, international unity would disintegrate, the hardliners in Iran would be strengthened, and we would lose the most effective path to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. That is a direct quote from Philip Hammond, the UK's foreign secretary. He speaks for all of our partners in this--100 nations who support this deal--100 nations who support this deal. Why would we want to stand with the hardliners in Iran? I know my colleagues wrote to them. And they are partners with them, make no mistake--the hardliners here and the hardliners in Iran.

Mrs. BOXER. But I believe if you are a moderate person, support this deal. I yield the floor.

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 my dear friend, Paula Kozlen, a former marketing executive, avid tennis player, world traveler, community leader, beloved wife, sister, stepmother, aunt, and friend, who passed away on August 29, 2015, after a courageous battle with cancer. Paula was truly one of a kind. Her energy and determination, her sense of humor and adventure, her incredibly kind heart and love of life will always be remembered by everyone lucky enough to have crossed her path during her amazing life. Paula was born in Illinois on July 26, 1952. After graduating from Western Illinois University with a degree in education, she embarked on a long and successful career in marketing and sales for several major corporations around the country. Paula's career provided her with the opportunity to travel, which became a lifelong passion. She loved visiting new places and developed deep and lasting friendships with people all over the world who were drawn to her extraordinarily compassionate and generous personality. Of all the places she traveled, she found her home in the Coachella Valley of Southern California. Paula cared so deeply about helping others and improving her community, and she gave her time and energy without reservation. She dedicated herself to supporting music, theatre, and education in the Coachella Valley, served on boards for organizations that provide services to those in need, and dropped everything to help the people of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina hit in 2005. Paula was the type of person who wouldn't hesitate when she saw people in need and knew that she could make a difference. My entire family joins me in mourning her loss and sending our heartfelt condolences to Paula's husband, Vern Kozlen; sisters Katherine Wolcott, and husband Keene, and Vicki Griffin, and husband Michael; step-son Mark Kozlen; and niece Katherine Griffin. Those of us who were lucky enough to have known Paula will be forever grateful for the extraordinary time we had with her, the example she set, and the wonderful memories that we will forever cherish. We truly walked in her light. She will be deeply missed.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. These are two Democrats, two Republicans, leaders all-- respected, effective. These former colleagues understand the risks of military action, and they are right. They know this deal doesn't rule out the use of military force. The United States can strike if we need to, but we must first try diplomacy. Since when are we afraid of that? We can try diplomacy because we are the most powerful Nation on Earth. We should try diplomacy, and if it fails, we always have all options on the table--as our President has said, as I have said, as everyone has said. It is striking to me that we don't have one Republican for this. I am kind of amazed. All of the focus was on the Democrats, really. A few are opposing and a vast majority are for it. I am surprised that a Richard Lugar couldn't sway anybody, that a Colin Powell couldn't sway anybody, that a John Warner couldn't sway anybody, and, also, the religious communities across the United States apparently aren't swaying anybody. It is telling that 340 U.S. rabbis fear that if the United States rejects the deal: ``. . . the outcome will be the collapse of the international sanctions regime, an Iranian race for nuclear weapons . . . [and] isolation of Israel and the United States from international partners.'' There is also support from more than 53 Christian leaders and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, who referred to Pope Francis's hope for a deal that he says is a ``definitive step toward a more secure and fraternal world.'' I don't know why we haven't been able to really see bipartisan support in the Senate. I am puzzled by it. I am saddened by it. It appears to me this is political. President Obama wants it. He worked hard for it. They don't like it. This is what I think. I may be wrong, but it is hard for me to imagine, with all of these solid Republicans in favor of this deal outside of the Senate and the House, we cannot seem to have bipartisanship. These faith leaders are speaking on behalf of their synagogues, on behalf their congregations, and their faithful. They are speaking for so many Americans, so many Americans who have prayed on this issue and have come to the conclusion that it is best for our Nation. Believe me, it is easier to say no. You can always say: Well, I don't like page 4, line 2. A deal by its very nature is not perfect. It is not. That is why it is a deal. Otherwise it would be a fiat. Oh, I want this. OK. We make deals. We do it here all the time, but somehow this deal--because it isn't perfect and everyone agrees it isn't perfect--somehow we cannot seem to get bipartisanship. It breaks my heart, frankly. Colleagues, this is really a major moment for us, as individuals and for our Nation. We will be judged on this vote, and we should be judged on this vote. We should be judged on votes that could lead to another war in the Middle East. At least one of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle admitted his truthful position. I respect that. He said we can ``set Iran's nuclear facilities back to day zero'' using military force. He is voting no on this agreement, and anyone else who joins him should know this: to walk away means Iran could continue its nuclear program at will. This is not acceptable, and it means a path to war. Let us not tiptoe around this. This option, the option of no agreement, isn't going back to the bargaining table because everyone has said--very clearly, all our allies--they are not going back to the bargaining table. So we have no agreement, and to walk away means the international sanctions collapse. If we think that we, ourselves, can now turn to our best friends and allies, such as the United Kingdom, and say: Well, if you don't go along with us, we are not trading with you anymore--that is not going to happen. To walk away means Iran continues its nuclear program because there won't be a deal. To walk away means we will find ourselves isolated from some of our best allies in the world. Remember, 100 nations support this deal, including the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Australia, Japan, and Canada. To walk away--I believe--means war, and the other side would say: Oh, that is just a scare tactic. It is not a scare tactic. If you cannot go back to the negotiating table because nobody is going back there with you--you can go back. You will be there by yourself. Iran walks away. They continue with their program, and we are not going to stand for that. We have all said that. So to walk away, in my view, means war. Because when we walk away, there is no deal. Iran keeps its nuclear program, and that cannot be allowed to happen. Another one of our colleagues whom we serve with--and I have a lot of respect for and a good friendship with--one said: Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran. You remember that. He is going to vote no on this deal, and that is going to move us more toward his reality. Wars are easy to start, and they are hard to end. Wars are a stain on the human race, and we should do everything in our power to avoid war. Now, avoiding war does not mean giving up strength because, again, a military response to Iran is always on the table. And if Iran violates the deal, the whole world will know it. It will be right out there, and the whole world will stand with us in taking action. Diplomacy is the first resort; war is the last resort. I have voted for war, OK. I said: Let's go after bin Laden. I voted for that war. It is easy to start, hard to end. So, my colleagues, I will say it again. This is our chance, and this is our choice. History will judge us. With this one vote, we have the chance to seize a historic opportunity to once again make America a shining example of leadership. With this vote, we have a chance, a real chance, to make this world safer right now for our children and our grandchildren. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, if I might, through the Chair, if Senator Corker would like to take his 5 minutes first, I am happy to allow that.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I wish to thank my chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Corker, for his courtesies. We do not agree on this particular matter, but there are a lot of matters when it comes to foreign policy on which we do agree. I do agree this should be a very straightforward debate--either you are for this agreement or you are not. I think the fact that Congress is voting on it is good. I did support that in the committee. That calls for regular order as far as the way we treat this very important vote. I am very proud to stand here today as the longest serving member sitting on the Foreign Relations Committee today. Out of all of the members, I have been there the longest. When I got there, I did not have these gray hairs. I am not blaming any of the topics that came before us for these gray hairs; however, we have had some tough debates, and this certainly is one of them. I know my friend has a lot to do. I just want to say I was pleased to yield to him because I think he has set the right tone. Colleagues, this is a vote we are going to long remember, a vote on an arms control agreement that came about for only one reason. That reason is, our President and his team--former Senator John Kerry, now Secretary of State; Wendy Sherman, the chief negotiator--they were part of the team, and many others worked tirelessly against the most vitriolic opposition. The President stood firm. I want to say to him today: Thank you, Mr. President. In that race for President that you ran, you were very clear that you were going to reach out your hand and see if we could avoid another war in the Middle East. I hope and pray this Senate will give us and the world this opportunity. As the President has said, a military option is always on the table. It is in our Constitution that the President can respond to a threat. So nothing in this agreement takes a military response off the table. But it does say that diplomacy should have a chance to work. This diplomacy includes much of the world. That is why it is so remarkable. I also want to give special thanks to two former Secretaries of State--Colin Powell, a Republican, and Hillary Clinton, a Democrat--for weighing in on the side of diplomacy. As Senators, we deal with thousands of issues in the course of our careers, but we will long remember those that actually change the course of history. Those kinds of votes are votes of conscience, and they are votes about which we must look deeply into our hearts and into our minds. We have to look at the facts. Facts are stubborn things. No matter what 30-second ad there is, no matter what newspaper ad there is, there are facts that are obvious. I want to go through those facts. I have them here on this chart. One, this agreement cuts off the uranium pathway to a bomb. It does it by reducing Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium by 98 percent and severely restricting its ability to enrich uranium. That is No. 1. Two, it cuts off the plutonium pathway to a bomb. They do that by dismantling Iran's Arak reactor's core and replacing it with a core that cannot produce weapons-grade plutonium. That is the second part of the agreement. Three, it includes the most intrusive inspections regime ever negotiated. Let me repeat that. The deal includes the most intrusive inspections regime ever negotiated. This means 24/7 monitoring of Iran's declared sites as well as inspections to the entire nuclear supply chain, from its uranium mines and mills, to its conversion facility, to its centrifuge manufacturing and storage facility. This is critical. It provides the International Atomic Energy Agency--you will hear it referred to as the IAEA--with the mechanism to require that Iran grant access to its suspicious sites. No other international agreement has ever done this before. So when you hear colleagues say, ``Well, Iran has 24 days, you know, to hide things,'' all the experts will tell you that you can hide a computer, but you cannot hide nuclear material. It has a half-life of thousands of years. But no other international agreement, not even the agreements we have with the IAEA, say that the IAEA has a deadline where access has to be granted to suspicious sites. Next, it requires the Iranians to disclose their past nuclear activities before they can receive any sanctions relief. Let me say that again. The Iranians have to disclose their past nuclear activities before they can receive any sanctions relief. Lastly, if Iran cheats, the United States and our allies will be able to snap back multilateral sanctions. There is a process there that gives us a lot of power to do that. Because of all of this, more than 100 nations support this deal, including many of our closest allies, such as the United Kingdom, Germany, Australia, France, Japan, and Canada--100 nations. That is why 29 of the Nation's top scientists, including 6 Nobel laureates, call the deal ``innovative and stringent'' and even say it can serve as a ``guidepost for future agreements.'' One hundred nations, 29 of our Nation's top scientists. That is also why 60 bipartisan national security leaders support it, including leaders such as Madeleine Albright, Thomas Pickering, and Ryan Crocker. You know those names. You know those people. They have integrity. They have intelligence. They have experience. They were appointed by Republicans and Democrats alike. They point out that there are no viable alternatives to this agreement. They are right. Anyone--you are going to hear this from my Republican friends--anyone who says we should go back to the bargaining table--and you are going to hear this over and over again: Oh, just go back to the bargaining table. Anyone who says that after 20 months of negotiations and huge support in the world is either engaging in fantasy or they truly want to sink this deal. So if you hear somebody say, ``Oh, just go back to the table. Just forget the support of the 100 nations. Just go back and renegotiate this deal,'' let me tell you, they are either engaging in fantasy or they want to sink this deal. There is a hard, cold truth here: If we walk away, there will be no agreement. Let's be clear. If that is your position, why don't you say it? But don't say ``Go back to the negotiating table. No problem.'' If we walk away, there will be no agreement. America will be isolating itself and undermining its role as a global leader on arms control. That is why more than 100 former U.S. Ambassadors say that without this deal, ``the risks to the security of the United States and our friends and allies would be far greater.'' Let me say that again. One hundred former U.S. Ambassadors from both parties say that ``the risks to the security of the United States and our friends and allies would be far greater'' than if we do the deal. We know right now that Iran has enough nuclear material to build 10 nuclear weapons. So whom are you kidding when you say the world will be safer if this agreement falls and Iran is left to continue the dangerous course it began way back in 1984? We passed sanctions. We did it right here. I spoke on that. I said: We have to keep our eye on Iran. We don't trust them. So they came to the table. Opposing this agreement means walking away--walking away from the very strategy we embraced when we placed sanctions on Iran. It means walking away from our best friends, our allies, and our trading partners. When you probe the opponents of this deal and you say, ``Well, if you go back to the table, you are going to lose 100 nations, many of them our best friends,'' do you know what they say? ``Oh, we can just sanction those friends. We can just sanction those allies. We can just sanction those trading partners.'' Can you imagine going after our best friends? Is that a winning strategy? That is another example of the opponents dreaming or scheming--dreaming of a successful go-it-alone strategy or scheming for another war in the Middle East. Those options--go it alone or a war--are self-inflicted wounds we can ill afford. Let's put up the statement by Philip Hammond, the United Kingdom Foreign Secretary. This is what he said. In a meeting with the various Ambassadors of the countries that cut this deal, the same thing was said, but let's say it the way he did. This is the United Kingdom Foreign Secretary: If the United States were to walk away from this deal, international unity would disintegrate. The hardliners in Iran would be strengthened, and we would lose the most effective path to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. Philip Hammond, the UK Foreign Secretary. So, again, look at what he is saying. He is saying that if we walk away, the hardliners in Iran would be strengthened. They would win. So I ask opponents of this deal: Why do you want to stand with the hardliners in Iran? Because you are standing with the hardliners in Iran who shout ``Death to America,'' ``Death to Israel.'' You are standing with them. They want to kill the deal. I am under no illusion that this agreement solves all of our problems with Iran. I am under no illusions that this agreement will make Iran suddenly some positive player on the world stage that we can cozy up to. No. No. That is why this agreement is not based on trust. As Hillary Clinton said today, it is based on distrust and verification. She is right. This agreement is also based on the most stringent inspection regime ever negotiated. Iran is a bad and a dangerous actor. I do not think there is any disagreement on that. That is why its nonnuclear activities will remain subject to tough sanctions. But here is the ultimate question each of us must ask ourselves: Would we rather have a bad and dangerous actor with a nuclear bomb or a bad and dangerous actor without a nuclear bomb? My kids would say that is a no- brainer. The answer is obvious. We don't want Iran with a nuclear bomb. That is why we need this deal. If Iran cheats, it will be in front of the whole world. I will be among the first to consider any and all options. I began by saying this is one of the most important votes we will ever cast in our lifetime. I am reminded of another one, my vote against the Iraq war. It was lonely then--only 23 of us--but you have to look at the situation. Some of the leading voices against this deal were the very same people who brought us the Iraq war. Remember Paul Wolfowitz saying the Iraqis would ``greet us as liberators''? Remember Dick Cheney, who is out there now saying: Vote no on this deal. Oh, it is terrible. Remember what he said as he drew us into Iraq? He said there was ``no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.'' And remember when he said the whole war would be ``weeks rather than months''? I remember that after 10 years of war. Remember Bill Kristol saying we would ``be vindicated when we discover the weapons of mass destruction''? And, remember, some of our colleagues who are here today pushed hard for the Iraq war and said it would be great for America and great for Israel. Well, they were wrong then, and they are wrong now. Look, it is no secret that the Prime Minister of our great ally, Israel, is on the other side of this argument, but we must also remember that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was a cheerleader for the Iraq war and said in 2002: ``If you take out . . . Saddam's regime, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region.'' Prime Minister Netanyahu argued for the Iraq war saying: ``I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region.'' Positive reverberations? Instead, devastating consequences. More than 4,000 of our brave American men and women were killed and nearly 32,000 wounded. We know that a lot of the Baathists joined ISIS, and the Baathists were loyal to Saddam. Now they are guiding ISIS. No positive reverberations there, devastating consequences. If we were completely honest and we really asked the question: Who won the war in Iraq? The answer comes back, Iran. Iran. They have never had more influence in modern times on Iraq than they have today. That is why, as a stalwart supporter of Israel and the Israeli-American relationship, I strongly support this deal. I am the proud author of the last two United States-Israel security bills passed by Congress. They were called the United States-Israel Enhanced Security Cooperation Act of 2012 and the United States-Israel Strategic Partnership Act of 2014. I believe, as the author of those two bills that President Obama signed, this deal makes the United States safer, it makes Israel safer, and it makes the entire world safer. I said that Prime Minister Netanyahu is very clearly opposed, but let's look at some of the top military experts in Israel--experts who understand what is paramount to Israel's security. Let's look at Ami Ayalon. He is a former head of Shin Bet, Israel's internal security service. He said: ``When it comes to Iran's nuclear capability, this [deal] is the best option. . . .'' Now this isn't just some citizen in the street; this is the former head of Shin Bet, Israel's internal security service, saying this. Then there is Amram Mitzna, a retired major general in the Israel Defense Forces, the IDF, former member of the Knesset and former mayor of Haifa, who said: ``For Israel's sake and all the people of the Middle East, we must not miss this opportunity.'' Then there is Efraim Halevy, former director of the Mossad, who said: ``Without an agreement, Iran will be free to act as it wishes. . . .'' Let me repeat that. This is the former director of the Mossad, who said: ``Without an agreement, Iran will be free to act as it wishes. . . .'' These leaders from Israel whom I have quoted are some of the most knowledgeable in the world when it comes to Israel's security, and they believe this deal will make Israel safer. It doesn't change the fact that the Israeli Government opposes this. I agree with that; I understand that. But there is a split in Israel, and it is worth commenting on it. With their expertise and their knowledge, these endorsements by these Israelis should be taken seriously. Also, the endorsements from our current and former colleagues in Congress should be taken seriously. Eleven Jewish former Members have weighed in, saying: ``We championed the U.S.-Israel alliance . . . and we all strongly support this agreement because it will enhance the security of the U.S., the State of Israel, and the entire world.'' I thank them for weighing in. This is one of those debates that is very hard--regardless of your position--because it is emotional, it is difficult, and yet they weighed in, as did the Israeli security experts. Believe me, the pressure on them not to talk was enormous. This deal also has the support of some of the most knowledgeable and respected foreign policy lawmakers who ever served in Congress. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record two opinion pieces, one written by Senators Carl Levin and John Warner and another by Senators Sam Nunn and Richard Lugar.

Mrs. BOXER. Briefly, this is not a lot. What I wanted to point out is exactly that; that you do have a few Democrats, I think four Democrats, who have come down ``no,'' but we don't have one Republican on the other side. That was the only point I was making. So my colleague is right. You have bipartisanship, but I am asking where are the Republicans supporting this? It just seems odd to me. And to me it does feel political from your side because when you have Colin Powell, who is for the agreement, and you have John Warner and other Republicans--former ambassadors and military people--it just seems odd. I was making that point. But my colleague is right. You do have bipartisan support on your side, and I am lamenting the fact that we don't have it on ours because it doesn't feel right to me, having gone through these debates in the past.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the California Coastal National Monument Expansion Act, legislation that would expand the current Monument to include about 6,200 acres of pristine public lands across four California counties. I am proud to be joined in this effort by my friend from California, Senator Dianne Feinstein. In 2000, President Clinton made history when he designated the California Coastal National Monument, which stretches the entire 1,100 miles of California's coastline and protects more than 20,000 small islands, rocks, exposed reefs and islands between Mexico and Oregon. It also protects the habitat for a variety of wildlife including seabirds, California sea lions and southern sea otters. In 2012, I introduced legislation with Senator Feinstein and Congressman Mike Thompson to expand the Monument to include the Point Arena-Stornetta Public Lands in Mendocino County. We were grateful when President Obama took action last year to add these spectacular lands as the first onshore addition to the monument. The legislation we are introducing today would expand the California Coastal National Monument again to include five more onshore sites, creating a new network of federal coastal properties for the public to enjoy. By highlighting these sites, the measure would also boost tourism and the economy of communities up and down the coast. Each one of these new areas is unique, with its own rugged landscape, its own majestic views of the Pacific Ocean and its own history. Each piece tells us part of the fascinating story of the development of California and our Nation. In Humboldt County, one of my State's northern most counties, this legislation would protect Trinidad Head--13 acres of rocky shoreline which offers visitors breathtaking views of offshore sea stacks and the City of Trinidad, the oldest town on the northern California coast. The land is also home to the historic Trinidad Head lighthouse, which dates back to 1871 when it helped guide vessels carrying lumber up and down the Redwood Coast. The Lost Coast Headlands in Humboldt County would also be included, providing visitors access to 440 acres of some of the most spectacular scenery in northern California. From alpine forests and rolling mountains to coastal bluffs south of the mouth of the Eel River, this area offers a little something for every outdoor enthusiast, whether it is hiking, bird watching or beachcombing. These lands also played an important role during the Cold War when the U.S. Navy opened a post there to monitor Soviet submarines. The Monument would be expanded to encompass Lighthouse Ranch, about 11 miles south of Eureka, which sits on eight acres of a former U.S. Coast Guard station once used as a Christian commune. Today, it offers breathtaking, panoramic views of the Eel River Delta, Humboldt Bay and the Pacific Ocean. Drive about 350 miles south of Humboldt County to Santa Cruz County and you will discover the Cotoni-Coast Dairies--5,780 acres of former dairy and cement plant lands. Its name is a nod to the Cotoni Indians, who lived there for thousands of years, and the Swiss dairy farmers who ran the land as a farm and ranch for much of the 20th century. The area, which would also be included in the Monument, draws in visitors with its redwoods, coastal grasslands, foothills and watersheds that flow directly into the northern Monterrey Bay. The bill would also preserve Piedras Blancas--20 acres with 425 state-owned acres cooperatively managed by the Bureau of Land Management, BLM, in Big Sur. Named for three white rocks just off the end of the point, the area is well-known for its historic 19th century lighthouse and is also an important ecological research area. Tourists come to catch a glimpse of a beautiful landscape untouched by development and see wildlife like Elephant Seals, sea lions and sea birds. Additionally our legislation would protect one offshore site--a group of small rocks and islands off the coast of Orange County. Back in the 1930s, the Coast Guard considered using these properties for lighthouses, but the agency now agrees they should be permanently protected as part of the National Monument. Under this bill, these amazing rocks and islands will remain a pristine part of California's natural heritage. These are some of the most magnificent lands in the country, and we have a responsibility to protect them for current and future generations. That is why expanding the California Coastal National Monument is so critical. The new designation would permanently protect each site from development and would ensure stronger protections for a diverse array of wildlife that call the area home, many of which are endangered. It would also help restore habitats and protect water quality by placing these properties under one management plan to allow for better coordination of available resources. Expanding the Monument is not just good for our conservation efforts--it is also good for the economy. Each of these natural treasures showcases the breathtaking coastlines and recreational opportunities that draw visitors from California and across the world. Listen to the numbers from these three California counties: In Humboldt County, tourism is responsible for more than $330 million every year. In Santa Cruz County, tourism brings in more than $700 million every year and is one of the county's top industries. Tourism in San Luis Obispo County produces more than $1 billion annually and is also the county's largest industry, supporting 15,570 jobs in 2011. Designating these sites as part of the National Monument will not only generate more economic activity, it will help attract increased resources to support the needs of the area, including additional conservation programs. The expansion of this National Monument has strong support from a large coalition of local governments, elected officials, business owners, landowners, farmers, private individuals, and many conservation and outdoor industry groups. This impressive grassroots effort shows how deeply our citizens care about the future of these public lands, and I am proud to support their hard work and commitment. I urge my colleagues to support this bill to expand the California Coastal National Monument and help protect these spectacular lands for generations to come.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am pleased to reintroduce the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians Water Rights Settlement Act of 2013. This legislation will implement a settlement concerning the water rights of the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians, who have been engaged for several decades in a struggle for recognition and protection of their federally reserved groundwater rights. Since 1951, the Pechanga have been involved in litigation initiated by the United States concerning water rights in the Santa Margarita watershed. The Pechanga's interest has been in protecting their groundwater supplies, which are shared with municipal developments in the San Diego region. Beginning in 2006, the Pechanga worked with local water districts to negotiate a cooperative solution and put an end to their dispute. The Pechanga Settlement Agreement is a comprehensive agreement negotiated among the Pechanga, the United States on their behalf, and several California water districts, including the Rancho California Water District, Eastern Municipal Water District, and the Metropolitan Water District. The Settlement recognizes the Pechanga's tribal water right to 4994 acre-feet of water per year and outlines a series of measures to guarantee this amount. It is a watershed wide solution that protects the rights of the Pechanga while providing greater certainty and resources to the management of the basin's water supplies. I am pleased to be joined by Senator Feinstein in introducing this legislation. Our bill not only provides the Pechanga with long-overdue assurances of their water rights, but also exemplifies all the good that can be accomplished when parties put aside their differences and come to the table to negotiate collaborative solutions.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, it is with great sadness that I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the extraordinary life of Sarah Anderson, a beloved mother, wife, daughter, sister, friend, colleague, and passionate advocate for improving the health and lives of people throughout our country. Sarah passed away on July 28, 2015, at the age of 49. I met Sarah when she came to work on my first campaign for the U.S. Senate. At the time, this impressive young Fort Collins, CO native was just a few years into her political career, having moved to Washington, DC, to work for Senator Tim Wirth right after graduating from the University of Colorado. Sarah was passionate about helping to elect women, and she wanted to be part of what turned out to be an historic 1992 election. With her wit, intelligence, talent, dedication, sense of humor, and ever-present twinkle in her piercing blue eyes, it was immediately clear to all of us that Sarah was special. However, one young campaign staff member named Matt Kagan seemed to notice all of Sarah's unique gifts even more than anyone else. While working 20-hour days on our campaign, Sarah and Matt somehow managed to find time to fall in love. At the time, I would sometimes joke that while I was falling in the polls, they were falling in love. But the truth is, Matt and Sarah's beautiful marriage and son were among the most important results of that first campaign. Sarah and Matt always shared a fierce commitment to making the world a better place. For more than 25 years, Sarah worked tirelessly for the causes she believed in--whether it was protecting the environment at the Sierra Club and the League of Conservation Voters; serving the people of Oregon and California as press secretary to Congresswoman Elizabeth Furse and Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez; or helping to prevent and stop pandemics as an Assistant Dean at UCLA's School of Public Health for nearly a decade. Sarah and Matt always managed to fill their homes--first in DC and then in California--with love, laughter, good conversation, and great food. But their most important addition happened 10 years ago when they joyfully welcomed their son, Spencer, into their lives. Whenever Spencer's name was mentioned, Sarah's face always lit up with such pride and love, and there are no words to express how sorry I am for Spencer and Matt's loss. I also want to extend my deepest condolences to Sarah's entire family, especially her mother and stepfather, Sue and Ed Sparling; her sister, Jennifer Enright; and stepbrothers, Erik and Bret Sparling. Sarah, Matt, and Spencer will always be part of our extended family of Boxer staff members, all of whom join me today in mourning Sarah's loss and celebrating her amazing legacy, which will always live on in the causes she championed, the friendships she forged, and the family she loved and lived for.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the California Coastal National Monument Expansion Act, legislation that would expand the current Monument to include about 6,200 acres of pristine public lands across four California counties. I am proud to be joined in this effort by my friend from California, Senator Dianne Feinstein. In 2000, President Clinton made history when he designated the California Coastal National Monument, which stretches the entire 1,100 miles of California's coastline and protects more than 20,000 small islands, rocks, exposed reefs and islands between Mexico and Oregon. It also protects the habitat for a variety of wildlife including seabirds, California sea lions and southern sea otters. In 2012, I introduced legislation with Senator Feinstein and Congressman Mike Thompson to expand the Monument to include the Point Arena-Stornetta Public Lands in Mendocino County. We were grateful when President Obama took action last year to add these spectacular lands as the first onshore addition to the monument. The legislation we are introducing today would expand the California Coastal National Monument again to include five more onshore sites, creating a new network of federal coastal properties for the public to enjoy. By highlighting these sites, the measure would also boost tourism and the economy of communities up and down the coast. Each one of these new areas is unique, with its own rugged landscape, its own majestic views of the Pacific Ocean and its own history. Each piece tells us part of the fascinating story of the development of California and our Nation. In Humboldt County, one of my State's northern most counties, this legislation would protect Trinidad Head--13 acres of rocky shoreline which offers visitors breathtaking views of offshore sea stacks and the City of Trinidad, the oldest town on the northern California coast. The land is also home to the historic Trinidad Head lighthouse, which dates back to 1871 when it helped guide vessels carrying lumber up and down the Redwood Coast. The Lost Coast Headlands in Humboldt County would also be included, providing visitors access to 440 acres of some of the most spectacular scenery in northern California. From alpine forests and rolling mountains to coastal bluffs south of the mouth of the Eel River, this area offers a little something for every outdoor enthusiast, whether it is hiking, bird watching or beachcombing. These lands also played an important role during the Cold War when the U.S. Navy opened a post there to monitor Soviet submarines. The Monument would be expanded to encompass Lighthouse Ranch, about 11 miles south of Eureka, which sits on eight acres of a former U.S. Coast Guard station once used as a Christian commune. Today, it offers breathtaking, panoramic views of the Eel River Delta, Humboldt Bay and the Pacific Ocean. Drive about 350 miles south of Humboldt County to Santa Cruz County and you will discover the Cotoni-Coast Dairies--5,780 acres of former dairy and cement plant lands. Its name is a nod to the Cotoni Indians, who lived there for thousands of years, and the Swiss dairy farmers who ran the land as a farm and ranch for much of the 20th century. The area, which would also be included in the Monument, draws in visitors with its redwoods, coastal grasslands, foothills and watersheds that flow directly into the northern Monterrey Bay. The bill would also preserve Piedras Blancas--20 acres with 425 state-owned acres cooperatively managed by the Bureau of Land Management, BLM, in Big Sur. Named for three white rocks just off the end of the point, the area is well-known for its historic 19th century lighthouse and is also an important ecological research area. Tourists come to catch a glimpse of a beautiful landscape untouched by development and see wildlife like Elephant Seals, sea lions and sea birds. Additionally our legislation would protect one offshore site--a group of small rocks and islands off the coast of Orange County. Back in the 1930s, the Coast Guard considered using these properties for lighthouses, but the agency now agrees they should be permanently protected as part of the National Monument. Under this bill, these amazing rocks and islands will remain a pristine part of California's natural heritage. These are some of the most magnificent lands in the country, and we have a responsibility to protect them for current and future generations. That is why expanding the California Coastal National Monument is so critical. The new designation would permanently protect each site from development and would ensure stronger protections for a diverse array of wildlife that call the area home, many of which are endangered. It would also help restore habitats and protect water quality by placing these properties under one management plan to allow for better coordination of available resources. Expanding the Monument is not just good for our conservation efforts--it is also good for the economy. Each of these natural treasures showcases the breathtaking coastlines and recreational opportunities that draw visitors from California and across the world. Listen to the numbers from these three California counties: In Humboldt County, tourism is responsible for more than $330 million every year. In Santa Cruz County, tourism brings in more than $700 million every year and is one of the county's top industries. Tourism in San Luis Obispo County produces more than $1 billion annually and is also the county's largest industry, supporting 15,570 jobs in 2011. Designating these sites as part of the National Monument will not only generate more economic activity, it will help attract increased resources to support the needs of the area, including additional conservation programs. The expansion of this National Monument has strong support from a large coalition of local governments, elected officials, business owners, landowners, farmers, private individuals, and many conservation and outdoor industry groups. This impressive grassroots effort shows how deeply our citizens care about the future of these public lands, and I am proud to support their hard work and commitment. I urge my colleagues to support this bill to expand the California Coastal National Monument and help protect these spectacular lands for generations to come.